Scopes II and Scopes I

Posted 30 March 2005 by Nick Matzke

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/scopes-ii-and-s.html

Today an interesting editorial was published: Michelle M. Simmons, “Why opposing evolution resonates with some,” The Patriot-News, March 30, 2005. It is not the full history of antievolution — Herbert Spencer, the Seventh Day Adventists, and World War I are also important — but worth reading if you haven’t thought about the history before (see Ronald Numbers, The Creationists, for much more).

The backlash against the theory of evolution (and the teaching of it) resonated not only with religious fundamentalists, but also with political and economic populists. Faced with the near impossibility of changing economic and political power structures, many turned their attention to the alleged evils of a secular society.

The political career of William Jennings Bryan is a case in point. Bryan’s early days cemented him as a fiery progressive and anti-imperialist in Congress, his famous “Cross of Gold” speech ensured his populist credentials in 1894, and he served as secretary of state under Woodrow Wilson. By the 1920s, however, he was obsessed with Prohibition and creationism. His performance at the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1924 may have won his case, but it left him exhausted and humiliated. He died five days later.

Throughout the world, religious fundamentalism tends to breed among the economically and politically dispossessed, and the United States is no exception. And as with the many eruptions of book bannings in libraries and schools, creationism, or “Intelligent Design” as its proponents prefer to call it today, has found a home among the middle and working classes precisely because of the tensions created by our economic dependence on a 21st-century version of social Darwinism. MOST OF US have little-to-no control over globalization, the outsourcing of jobs, the skyrocketing of health-care costs, and on and on. So instead we scapegoat “atheists” and “secular humanists” (along with all those “others”— feminists, gays and lesbians, and immigrants); only this time around, the movement is being funded by arch-conservative think tanks and organizations with exceptionally deep pockets.

As we follow in the months ahead what is being called the Scopes II trial out of the Dover Area School District, it will be worth our while to consider why we’re at it again, what other parallels we might draw between the Gilded Age and today, and whose interests are really being served here.

(Michelle M. Simmons, "Why opposing evolution resonates with some," The Patriot-News, March 30, 2005.)

The comparison between antievolutionists then and antievolutionists now would be worth exploring in much more detail. How did a populist antievolutionism tradition motivated by discontent with economic conservatism evolve into a populist antievolutionism tradition in league with economic conservatism? How did we get from William Jennings Bryan to Senator Rick Santorum?

68 Comments

Great White Wonder · 30 March 2005

How did a populist antievolutionism tradition motivated by discontent with economic conservatism evolve into a populist antievolutionism tradition in league with economic conservatism? How did we get from William Jennings Bryan to Senator Rick Santorum?

I think it might have something to do with an evolving media which pretends to look out for the interests of the lower classes but increasingly comprises mostly wealthy self-interested types who exploit the prejudices and relative ignorance of the lower classes to achieve relatively short-term profitability (e.g., "ratings").

Throughout the world, religious fundamentalism tends to breed among the economically and politically dispossessed, and the United States is no exception.

Has anyone ever offered a compelling argument to the contrary? I don't think any creationist apologist here has ever admitted to being a fundamentalist. But it's unclear to me whether our trolls also deny the existence of fundamentalist religious types in the United States or the correlations of fundamentalism with poverty and political dispossesion in the United States and other parts of the world.

Ron Zeno · 30 March 2005

Considering that Santorum is Roman Catholic, I'm sure that his anti-Catholic stance on evolution makes him more appealing to many Republicans, especially Christian fundamentalists. Maybe the Pope can set him straight? ;)

jeff-perado · 30 March 2005

Nick Matzke wrote: How did we get from William Jennings Bryan to Senator Rick Santorum?

That is the 64k$ question. I look at today, and I see that those who tend towards religious (Christian) fanaticism are still the disenfranchised. But they tend to view the government, and any of those in power as tools of the beast, and thus distrust them. That is why (in my view) they shun the social programs offered by the government that would help them; equal the playing field as it were. They distrust business, the wealthy, the powerful, yet they resist any help to them that comes from those sources. They look at it as being from the anti-god. They do, however respond to the evangelist rhetoric that all will be equalized in the "next life" so they should just hang on. A better future in the next life seems to hold more appeal than a better future in this life for them. That type of mentality explains how they would wed themselves to the conservative Republican line. They have, today, reached the point where they would prefer to suffer without, than to have the government intervene and set things more equal. This inevitably spills over into science and medicine. Today, they have PDAs, microwave ovens, MRI/CAT/PET scans, genetic-drugs, air travel, energy to spare... All those things are resultant from basic science and basic scientific method, and all are intimately related, yet this is not enough to overcome the idea that science is out to destroy their religion, and them. So, in all, they would like to condemn all that makes their lives better, because they feel as if a better life is due to those powers that come from the antichrist, even though they blindly accept some, when they don't realize it, yet deny others when they do. Science, government, money, power, they are all things of the elite and not the "common man." Thus they come from some place other than god, and that is the one thing (belief) that anyone can hold (again, nudging them towards the republican line of anti-government and anti-science). The irony is, of course, they tend to be led by the Robertson/Falwell/Dobson/Kennedy types, who are themselves quite rich and powerful, and knowledgeable in the ways of manipulating people.

Nick (Matzke) · 30 March 2005

An additional thought is that academia fairly completely purged evolution-related studies of Spencerism (aka social Darwinism) and eugenics. Important factors in this were the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, which made evolution statistical and quantitative (population genetics also showed that eugenics basically couldn't work), the work of cultural anthropologists such as Margaret Mead (showing the within-species cultural diversity of humans), and World War II (which showed just what a slippery slope eugenics was, and highlighted the abuses that occurred in the U.S.). Liberals thus more-or-less had all of their concerns about evolution taken care of. None of this helped fundamentalists, however, and I think that the idea that "evolution is false/evil" has almost become its own religious doctrine in a number of denominations.

Wesley R. Elsberry · 30 March 2005

Uh... "Scopes II" was prominently used by LA Senator Bill Keith to refer to Edwards v. Aguillard.

Pete Dunkelberg · 31 March 2005

Before putting too much effort into complex analysis one might consider a simpler possibility. The concerted, well financed and intelligently designed efforts of a few professional creationists are a large factor.

David Heddle · 31 March 2005

Jeff

A better future in the next life seems to hold more appeal than a better future in this life for them. That type of mentality explains how they would wed themselves to the conservative Republican line.

Fascinating analysis Jeff. And here, all along, I thought it had to do with things like less support among Republicans for the murder of children in the womb, less support among Republicans for worshipping on the altar of multiculturalism (defined as {all cultures} - {western culture}), less support among Republicans for ripping the feeding tube out of a woman whose parents are willing assume all burdens of her care, less support among Republicans for ad absurdum interpretations of the establishment clause, less support among Republicans for awarding federal grants to institutions that deny access to military recruiters, etc. And now I see it is just because the bumpkins don't get it that the government is trying to "level the playing field" for their benefit. (Hmm, where have I heard that phrase before?)

Ben · 31 March 2005

Uh . . . "Scopes II" was prominently used by LA Senator Bill Keith to refer to Edwards v. Aguillard.

Scopes II¾?

Russell · 31 March 2005

murder of children in the womb, ...worshipping on the altar of multiculturalism... ripping the feeding tube out of a woman ... ad absurdum interpretations of the establishment clause...

For this kind of discourse, I've coined the word: beheddled It's a hybrid of: befuddled - floundering in a confused fog, and beheaded - where the body is irreversibly disconnected from centers of higher reasoning.

James Wynne · 31 March 2005

Fascinating analysis Jeff. And here, all along, I thought it had to do with things like less support among Republicans for the murder of children in the womb, less support among Republicans for worshipping on the altar of multiculturalism (defined as {all cultures} - {western culture}), less support among Republicans for ripping the feeding tube out of a woman whose parents are willing assume all burdens of her care, less support among Republicans for ad absurdum interpretations of the establishment clause, less support among Republicans for awarding federal grants to institutions that deny access to military recruiters, etc.
— David Heddle

A perfect example of the intellectual bankruptcy of social conservatism: Invoking needlessly inflammatory rhetoric ("murder of children in the womb," "ripping the feeding tube out...") and what I call the Peewee Herman argument--"I know you are, but what am I?" instead of answering the question.

Monty Zoom · 31 March 2005

When did "Liberal" become a bad word? During the Reagan years. Why? Because Reagan was a moderately popular president, and congress was comprised of "liberal" democrats. Thus, the conservatives used that leverage to oust the liberals from congress. The democrats benefited from the Depression that was blamed on the Republicans. The liberals sat on their laurels for 40+ years while the Republicans searched for issues that would have more appeal to the masses. That is what Reagan did. He painted the liberals as "Tax and Spend" and now the liberals have begun their search for issues that appeal to the masses. This is the way politics work. Note Republicans used to be on the side of the environment. (Theodore Roosevelt is a good example) Now, look how they treat the environment...

David Heddle · 31 March 2005

James Wynne:

Invoking needlessly inflammatory rhetoric

Oh, there be none of that from the PT regulars and contributors! All their inflammatory rhetoric is, I suppose, necessary inflammatory rhetoric. Based on the shifting sand upon which it is built, this is about the most ridiculous reply you could have made. I can counter it with a simple search followed list of some of GWW's choice comments, and among byliners, PZ and "Dr" GH, to name just two.

James Wynne · 31 March 2005

Oh, there be none of that from the PT regulars and contributors! All their inflammatory rhetoric is, I suppose, necessary inflammatory rhetoric. Based on the shifting sand upon which it is built, this is about the most ridiculous reply you could have made. I can counter it with a simple search followed list of some of GWW's choice comments, and among byliners, PZ and "Dr" GH, to name just two.
— David Heddle

In addition to the needlessly inflammatory rhetoric and the Peewee Herman Argument, there's also the prepubescent "Johnny did it, why can't I?". Thank you for rounding out the Social Conservative's Trilogy of Lame Debating Strategies.

E · 31 March 2005

David Heddle wrote: less support among Republicans for ripping the feeding tube out of a woman whose parents are willing assume all burdens of her care

Why don't you go read the recent polls that have come out clearly showing that the majority of Democrats, Independents, and REPUBLICANS all support removing Schiavo's feeding tube. In fact 70% of this country agrees with these so-called "activist" judges (most of which were appointed by Republicans, by the way) who have upheld Michael Shiavo's right to comply with his wife's wishes.

You're in the minority, David. I find your comments disgusting.

To keep this on topic, I don't think that religious conservatists care about their own personal wealth/lack of wealth. After all, God will take care of you, no matter how much debt you have (not sure how that goes along with Jesus telling his follower's to "render unto Caesar's what is Caesar's). As long as the collection plate is full on Sunday, God will provide. Getting ID into schools serves one purpose: witnessing to the masses, or indoctrinating the masses, whichever you prefer. I don't really see the difference between that and the Catholic church "outlawing" birth control, or Mormom's having as many children as possible, etc etc. The whole point is to get as many people on your team as possible! They'll figure the money part out later or God will provide.

Mike S. · 31 March 2005

Throughout the world, religious fundamentalism tends to breed among the economically and politically dispossessed, and the United States is no exception. Has anyone ever offered a compelling argument to the contrary?
— GWW

I think a lot depends upon how you define fundamentalism. On PT, it is frequently equated with conservative Christianity, but the two are not coincident. Also, it gets conflated with "anyone who disputes evolution". Santorum, for example, is a religious and political conservative, but he's not a fundamentalist. I would agree that a significant fraction of Protestant fundamentalists in the US are in the lower economic classes, although it's not clear what is meant by "politically dispossessed" in this context. However, when you look at Islamic fundamentalism, the trend is sort of reversed: many members of Al Qaeda are from the middle and upper economic classes, but they come from politically repressed societies. Also, the "economically depressed" argument has too many counter-examples to carry much weight. Why don't we see more religious fundamentalism in Africa? Southeast Asia? India? I do think the feelings of loss of control play a big role in fundamentalism, but I don't think there's a simple correlation with economic or political power. jeff-perado's post is a parodic example of liberal obsession with material equality, and ignorance or dismissal of spiritual, emotional, or moral concerns. He's basically repeating Thomas Frank's argument in "What's the Matter with Kansas?" (Which can be summed up as, "why don't those stupid rubes vote for Democrats?") He's also infantilizing the poor, talking about how they need help from either government or big business, and about how they seem to be ungrateful after receiving all these material goods.

Thus, the conservatives used that leverage to oust the liberals from congress.
— Monty Zoom

If by "conservatives" you mean "voters", then OK.

He painted the liberals as "Tax and Spend"

Are you trying to say that liberals don't like to tax and spend?

Now, look how they treat the environment . . .

Can you point to any major environmental indicators that are worse now than in 2000 or 1994?

Arne Langsetmo · 31 March 2005

David Heddle wrote:

... less support among Republicans for awarding federal grants to institutions that deny access to military recruiters ...

You forgot to finish your sentence, David. Here it is: "... who exhibit the best in us by engaging in blatant prejudice and homophobia and thus are banned by equal protection laws...."

HTH

Cheers,

GCT · 31 March 2005

Are you trying to say that liberals don't like to tax and spend?
— Mike S.

In the interests of fairness, they all (liberal and conservative alike) like to spend. I don't think anyone likes to tax though. It's a case of ideology related to whether increasing the deficit is good or not, and the role of liberal vs. conservative almost flip-flops in this case. The liberal will raise taxes so as not to inflate the deficit while the conservative will lower taxes and inflate the deficit thinking it can be paid off later if at all.

Arne Langsetmo · 31 March 2005

For this kind of discourse, I've coined the word:
beheddled

It's a hybrid of:...

I believe such a word would be called a "portmanteau word". C.L. Dodgson (a/k/a Lewis Carroll) was one of the masters of such inmaginative constructions...

Cheers,

David Heddle · 31 March 2005

I see James, you are going to hang on to this thread for support: 1) Heddle's inflammatory rhetoric is a perfect example of the intellectual bankruptcy of social conservatives 2) WHEREAS, inflammatory rhetoric of GWW, PZ, "Dr" GH, etc. etc. etc is NOT a perfect example of the intellectual bankruptcy of social liberals--and any reference to that rhetoric only strengthens claim (1). Well, that's as level as all other PT level playing fields. E, the polls you noted are irrelevant; the question Jeff addressed was about why conservative Christians tend to favor the Republican party. Have you seen a poll among those whom (by PTers) would be called "fundamentalists" as to whether or not they perceive the Republicans or Democrats as being more aligned with their views on the Schaivo case? That would be a relevant poll.

You're in the minority, David. I find your comments disgusting.

Just curious--is that cause and effect?

James Wynne · 31 March 2005

see James, you are going to hang on to this thread for support: 1) Heddle's inflammatory rhetoric is a perfect example of the intellectual bankruptcy of social conservatives 2) WHEREAS, inflammatory rhetoric of GWW, PZ, "Dr" GH, etc. etc. etc is NOT a perfect example of the intellectual bankruptcy of social liberals---and any reference to that rhetoric only strengthens claim (1).
— Peewee Heddle

Thread? It's a rather stout rope, and you strengthen it with each new post. Another identifying characteristic of modern social conservatism: paranoia, manifested in the belief that criticism leveled in their direction is aimed exclusivelyat them. It's actually an extension of the immature "Johnny did it..." response, but in the form of "Why don't you yell at Johnny too?" with the suggestion being that Johnny is just as bad as you are (as opposed to defense of your own postition, acknowledging the putatively conservative moral concept of two wrongs not making a right.

Russell · 31 March 2005

Since the Schiavo thing is basically a matter for the courts, not public opinion polls, I guess the relevant question is "how many of the judges involved are Dems vs. Reps?" From what I've read, conservative republican judges dominate at all levels. Perhaps this is another example of beheddlement .

Great White Wonder · 31 March 2005

murder of children in the womb, . . . worshipping on the altar of multiculturalism . . . ripping the feeding tube out of a woman

Unmasked! Heddle will deny being a fundamentalist but he is strangely eager to recite religious extremist slogans. I wouldn't describe Heddle's statements as "needlessly inflammatory". They are simply lies. And therein lies the difference between habitual dissemblers like David Heddle versus folks like myself, PZ and Dr. GH. It's an important difference.

Chris Caprette · 31 March 2005

Also, the "economically depressed" argument has too many counter-examples to carry much weight. Why don't we see more religious fundamentalism in Africa? Southeast Asia? India?

Uh... aren't Sudan & Somalia, Ethiopia & Eretrea, South Africa, Rwanda, all part of Africa? And aren't there a few of those mass-murder/genocide things happening in a couple of those places? As I recall, Bin-Laden started, or at least eagerly fueled the Islamic purges of animist and Christian peoples in Sudan, which continue under the current Sudanese government. I recall religious overtones to the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict also. And then there were the race purges during most of the twentieth century in South Africa based on an assumed superiority of one race over another, which itself was based, in part at least on interpretation of the bible. (Similar to biblical arguments justifying white-supremecy in the USA). Then there is the Hutu/Tutsi conflict in Rwanda. The tribal differences there are "ethnic" but such things are not really much more than deep-rooted superstitious beliefs about the nature of the involved parties (not much different than extreme religious beliefs). In India, there is the omnipresent conflict between Islamic and Hindu extremests which often erupts into extreme violence. On Sri Lanka there is a brutally violent conflict between Hindus and Buddhists (so much for non-violence being tenets of those religions). Then there is Indonesia where Islamic majorities oppress minority religions. In China there is Falun Gong which the communists argue is a cult of whackos (often labelled as terrorists) and the believers argue is a "standard" religion. While the oppressors are nominally athiest, there is little doubt that Maoists treat their former leader as a deity and behave exactly as religious zealots. And a little closer to home, there is the Christian oppression of native religions throughout Central and South America. On and on it goes... I suppose in each case one could argue that the religious participants are "extremists" rather than "fundamentalists", but that's just semantics. The consequences are the same if we are defining fundamentalists as those that interpret religious texts literally or as those are dogmatic followers of a particular interpretation of those texts. As another observation, while I am not so naive as to believe that geographically adjacent but different human cultures always coexisted peacefully until "evil" instigators arrived, (was that a long clause or what?) it seems as though almost all of those conflicts are rooted in foreign idealogues interfering with the governance of diverse peoples. I wonder if that is a "real" causal factor or merely a common thread?

Great White Wonder · 31 March 2005

Following up on my first comment, I note that Bob Somerby has made more astute observations about the odd way the media behaves when it comes to discussing weird religious beliefs in this country:

TELLY'S TUBBER: Here at THE HOWLER, we continue to marvel at last Sunday's performance by New Republic hot tub enthusiast Michelle Cottle. Go ahead---marvel again at what the water-logged culture warrior told Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources: KURTZ (3/27/05): Let's broaden this to other religious-related issues: teaching of evolution in Kansas schools, a lot of coverage there, whether it should be required, whether creationism should be included; the Ten Commandments display in Alabama and elsewhere; even gay marriage in San Francisco. Isn't there some built-in media bias by the East Coast journalists toward those who have a different view of these matters? COTTLE: I think there is. I mean, it's not that they---again, it's not that they say unpleasant things. But they do behave as though the people who believe these things are on the fringe, when actually the vast majority of the American public describes itself as Christian. You know, a huge percentage, somewhere between a third and a half, actually say that they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. And another huge chunk would be uncomfortable with evolution being taught in the schools. And this---this is not what you find in the New York media. Yes, it's hard to tell what Cottle meant; incoherence is the modern pundit's hallmark. But Cottle almost seemed to scold the "New York media" because it won't hire sufficient Flat Earthers! Should the "New York media" be hiring people who "would be uncomfortable with evolution being taught in the schools?" That's a difficult claim to make. But true to the nature of modern punditry, Cottle made it sound rather simple. We strongly suggest that you read this transcript---and when you read it, keep a few points in mind: First, Cottle complained about the way the establishment press allegedly disses religion. As she did so, Time and Newsweek both featured reverential cover stories about Christian religion. NBC had just completed a week in which all its broadcast and cable shows focused on "Religion in America." The Pope's recurrent illness was all over the news. And in the matter of Terri Schiavo, news orgs were being quite deferential to puzzling statements from religion-based observers who "say that they believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible." We'll offer one case study tomorrow when we ask: Who is Barbara Weller? But Cottle's sweeping assessment of the press corps' behavior was a bit hard to square with simple facts. And with that in mind, note one more point: Everyone on Kurtz's panel was mouthing this same general talking-point! Kurtz had brought three pundits onto his show---Cottle, Steve Roberts, and Joe Watkins. Watkins is a movement conservative; Cottle and Roberts are routinely pimped as mainstream or "liberal" observers. Yet all four people in this discussion expressed this pleasing conservative spin-point. Go ahead! Read through the whole discussion and see if you can find any room between the views of Watkins on one side, and Cottle, Kurtz and Roberts on the other. Strange, isn't it? Our press corps is driven by liberal bias---but everyone mouths the conservative spin-point! When they sit in those luxury hot tubs together, it almost seems that their world-views do merge. Tomorrow, we'll show you something that was occurring as Cottle slammed the dearth of Flat Earthers. As Cottle was mouthing her tired old cant, a new world was fleeing her notice.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh033105.shtml

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

Oh right, if the conservatives say something about social issues, they're just lying. Do you ever wonder why "the people" that liberals proclaim to care about end up turning on the academics and liberals who "speak for them", and vote against the academics' (with some exceptions, of course) constant devaluation of the beliefs and sensibilities of middle America?

The liberals inherit their moral usage of the term "baby murder" from Christianity, so of course it's fine when academia designates that killing a newborn is murder. Christian morality was inconvenient and costly (welfare payments and all) for the liberals, however, so they found a good aesthetically-pleasing means of disposing of so many unwanted human entities, which was to get rid of them in private and trumpet this "right of privacy" (never mind the fact that so much is illegal in private, from infanticide to drug use). If the conservatives tend not to notice that the legalistic "essential change" occurs during the birth process, and instead call the killing of the fetus or embryo "murder", it becomes a lie. For, do not liberals produce and dictate all meaningful truth in this society? After all, they side with the rich, from country club Republicans to overpaid New Yord Times editors, so they must be right, they must be allowed to control the discourse, hurl vile names at working class folk (thank god they're so often fundamentalist or otherwise conservative, since this gives a good cover for the class warfare visited upon the working class), and to delegitimize whatever the lower classes have to say.

If you really want to know why so many people hate evolution, it is to a significant degree due to the despicable attitudes and actions of academics and most other liberals toward other people (with exceptions in both groups, of course). One could argue reasonably about abortion and other matters, but this has almost never been done on the liberal side. There's a very good reason for this--both sides persist in a largely Christian morality, but the liberals wanted to change it to fit their own lifestyles and pocket books. They cannot grant any legitimacy to those who haven't adopted their own convenient definitions, because they don't have any good reason for them, neither for their opposition to infanticide nor their allowance of abortion. The sociological reasons are obvious, but virtually no liberals will own up to the factors that have led them to dictate their morality.

The lower classes are delegitimized unless they agree morally with the upper classes. Unfortunately, the former do not distinguish well between the perfidy committed by the upper classes from what is good legitimate science, but then again, how are they supposed to be psychologically able to, when their own sensibilities are nearly always delegitimized in academia?

On the other side, though, it becomes very hard to grant legitimacy to people who blatantly deny not only good biological science, but also the very methods used to do science. I wish that there were some simple solution to the impasse, but I do fear that this is all so convenient for those in charge that they may as well keep up with the present delegitimization and the consequent resentments of the delegitimized, while they continue to feel superior in their scientific knowledge.

There isn't really that much evidence that academia at large cares all that much about scientific knowledge, or they'd never have allowed the stupidity of pure constructionism to drive evolutionary considerations out of discussions of gender and so-called "equality". That's the "good creationism", though, and it can exist (if uneasily) within academic policy. Smite the lower classes, though, and allow mindless ideology to dictate "the truth" contrary evolution and reason where people are too powerful to be opposed.

I always have thought that science was really more threatened by socialist and constructionist/deconstructionist nonsense than by creationism per se. Yet it is so much more costly to fight things so stupid that only an intellectual can believe them, than to counter simple fundamentalist nonsense. And I fall into this pattern as well, because it provides to me a venue for the discussion of science and philosophy that doesn't exist for fighting post-modernist BS. Nevertheless, I'd be altogether too wimpy to let this issue by without pointing out how ill the sensibililities of religious lower-class folk are typically treated by the "knowing liberal" bourgeoisie.

Colin · 31 March 2005

(Offtopic, for which I apologize; perhaps this should be taken to the Wall, when it is unfrozen.)

The liberals inherit their moral usage of the term "baby murder" from Christianity, so of course it's fine when academia designates that killing a newborn is murder. Christian morality was inconvenient and costly (welfare payments and all) for the liberals, however, so they found a good aesthetically-pleasing means of disposing of so many unwanted human entities, which was to get rid of them in private and trumpet this "right of privacy" (never mind the fact that so much is illegal in private, from infanticide to drug use).
— Glen Davidson

That is a bizarre interpretation of the legal and political development of both reproductive rights and welfare in the United States. I think it reflects a profound misunderstanding of the subject. It is a stretch to say that liberals pin their "moral usage" of any term on Christianity, and even more of a stretch to say that it would be relevant if they did. Christianity wasn't the only, the first, or the last ethical structure to condemn murder. Nor was some hypothetically monolithic "Christian morality" costly for "the liberals," nor are reproductive rights part of some bizarre conspiracy to extirpate "unwanted human entities." Finally, your concept of the "right of privacy" is extremely inaccurate. Tinfoil-hat ranting is fun, but it does not persuade or impress anyone other than fellow travelers.

Great White Wonder · 31 March 2005

Wow, Glen, what an incoherent rant!

The conservative script regarding the lack of a liberal "moral foundation" is a rather tired one, although it remains popular with a certain breed of self-righteous robots who enjoy trumpeting the alleged virtues of belonging to an organization where answers to all of life's questions are provided on handy scrolls.

Also, pity you didn't read Somerby's remarks in the comment immediately preceding yours. The juxtaposition reflects poorly on you.

Lastly, I recommend trying a new salad dressing.

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

That is a bizarre interpretation of the legal and political development of both reproductive rights and welfare in the United States. I think it reflects a profound misunderstanding of the subject. It is a stretch to say that liberals pin their "moral usage" of any term on Christianity

Who said that? You re-invent what I wrote to avoid the obvious fact that US morality comes out of Christianity.

and even more of a stretch to say that it would be relevant if they did. Christianity wasn't the only, the first, or the last ethical structure to condemn murder.

What relevance does that have with what I wrote? Are you too poor at reading to recognize that what is considered murder was what I was discussing? Either way, you totally avoid what I was writing about and instead substitute a strawman to which you feel comfortable responding.

Nor was some hypothetically monolithic "Christian morality" costly for "the liberals," nor are reproductive rights part of some bizarre conspiracy to extirpate "unwanted human entities."

Blank assertion, apparently nothing beyond mere herd thought and "received wisdom". As I suggested, you people have no basis for what you say, and must simply repeat what each other says.

Finally, your concept of the "right of privacy" is extremely inaccurate.

Are you that devoid of substance that you can do nothing other than deny what's said in an intelligent piece? I see no evidence that you know anything of political theory, law, history, or advanced reading skills.

Tinfoil-hat ranting is fun,

And your name-calling is irrelevant and apparently about as much as you have to say. You're too ignorant to respond even to one thing accurately.

but it does not persuade or impress anyone other than fellow travelers.

Of course, you delegitimize anyone who disagrees with your beliefs. Nothing intelligent will affect your a priori beliefs. That was my point, and you exemplify it in your banality and obvious strawman fallacies.

Monty Zoom · 31 March 2005

Sorry OT...

Are you trying to say that liberals don't like to tax and spend?

The difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is a matter of priorities. For instance, the deficit used to be a republican issue. However, when they took control of the house, it no longer was. (Similarly for term limits.) Liberals generally want more benefits from the society in which they live, and conservatives generally want less obligations in the society they live. Thus, they tend to approach things with respect to their point of view. It is hard to characterize the current administration with that frame of reference because they seem to want to decrease the obligations on very few people. Conservative priorities are different than liberal priorities.

Can you point to any major environmental indicators that are worse now than in 2000 or 1994?

Lets say the earth is 6000 years old. What percentage of that would 4 or 8 years? Fairly small. (.13%) Thus, we would expect little change in such a short amount of time. Secondly, the changes that have been made since the clean air act have had greater impact than the slow eroding of those safe guards. Third, this is a large country and some areas will be affected differently than others. Thus, national studies aren't done. Forth, the republicans have had the presidency and or congress since about 1982 making environmental issue even more difficult to pass. Of course, you knew all of that when you made your "challenge." That is why you made it. However, I can definitely tell you that the air quality especially fine particulate matter (soot) has been worse this winter than it has in the last 10 years in many parts of the country. In fact, there were parts of the upper midwest that had their first air quality warnings in 25 years. Mercury and arsenic which should have been removed as contaminants due to technology 10 years ago are still problems. But who cares about the quality of life in cities?

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

Wow, Glen, what an incoherent rant!

Wow, GWW, what a stupid comment! You lack anything of intelligence or substance to counter my points, thus you delegitimize whatever disagrees with your uneducated comments. You can ape your bourgeois cohorts, but that's all.

The conservative script regarding the lack of a liberal "moral foundation" is a rather tired one,

Then why don't you deal with what I wrote? Oh, that's right, you can only rant and misrepresent when your sacred beliefs are opposed.

although it remains popular with a certain breed of self-righteous robots who enjoy trumpeting the alleged virtues of belonging to an organization where answers to all of life's questions are provided on handy scrolls.

Is that right, parrot? Apparently all you do is to name-call when met with some actual critical consideration of your vacuous positions. I'm more Nietzschean than any other labeled position, but I wouldn't expect a liberal herd animal like yourself to recognize intelligent criticism of bourgeois society. But you can lump and be dishonest in your general use of language and concepts. You just can't write anything of substance or value.

Also, pity you didn't read Somerby's remarks in the comment immediately preceding yours. The juxtaposition reflects poorly on you.

Only to you who are dim enough to rely on authorities for your "knowledge". Somerby's piece doesn't relate to what I was discussing, but again, you're obviously too ill-educated even to read an intelligent criticism of bourgeois society. Like I care about "reverential covers" compared to the dissing of values. You can't even differentiate between the two, but lump as dishonestly here as elsewhere. I liked Dan Savage's comment in the Village Voice. He wrote that Ashton Kutcher was the subject of gush pieces in teeny-bopper magazines like Teen and The New Republic. I read the latter when I was a teen, but haven't paid much attention to its shallowness since then. Too bad you haven't read enough to get beyond such second-rate tripe (apparently second hand too boot).

Lastly, I recommend trying a new salad dressing.

I recommend an education in the areas where you dare to pretend knowledge. Then you might have something intelligent to write, instead of what you've written thus far.

Great White Wonder · 31 March 2005

Then why don't you deal with what I wrote?

Because it's easier to simply let you dangle in the sun on the petard of your own incoherent self-congratulatory rambling. Buh-bye, troll.

E · 31 March 2005

Indeed! Cities are only full of us tree-hugging, defense-cutting, baby-killing, gun-controlling, welfare-paying, tax-raising, evolution-teaching, feeding tube-pulling, immoral SMART people (so say Rev. Mummart) that are imposing our beliefs on the REAL America.

Air Bear · 31 March 2005

How did we get from William Jennings Bryan to "baby murder"? I suspect that someone is upset about current events but won't say so.

To try to get back to William Jennings Bryan --

I have heard that his opposition to evolution was in reaction against Social Darwinism, which had some traction as late as the 20's. Social Darwinism was used by the economic elite to justify exploiting the underclass with the "survival of the fittest" slogan. If this was the basis of Bryan's opposition to evolution, then Bryan misunderstood science as badly as the apologists of Social Darwinism did.

Does anybody know more about Bryan and the source of his anti-evolution crusade?

Michael I · 31 March 2005

Glen Davidson writes:

(begin quote)

teeny-bopper magazines like Teen and The New Republic

(end quote)

Perhaps Glen has the New Republic confused with another magazine?

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

Then why don't you deal with what I wrote? Because it's easier to simply let you dangle in the sun on the petard of your own incoherent self-congratulatory rambling.

Apparently you have as much trouble with tellilng the truth as you have with reading something other than the sacred texts you learned at the hands of the "masters". At least you agree implicitly that you were dishonest in your reply. One small step in your life so lacking in knowledge. Btw, you can't dangle on a petard, dolt. Just another lame, stupid comment from you and your prejudiced ilk.

Buh-bye, troll.

Middle school comments come easy to you. Why don't you get an education? Oh yeah, you'd need an open mind, instead of a mere knee jerk reaction to new ideas.

Air Bear · 31 March 2005

A theological question for our resident experts on Christianity:

What happens to the soul of an aborted fetus?

David Heddle · 31 March 2005

Air Bear,

It's not a simple question. The bible has no "age of accountability." If it did, then the abortions would be mercy killings instead of murders. So there is no clear answer. (King) David was confident he would see his dead infant son in heaven. In truth, the bible is silent on it.

If you are aware of the predestination Calvinist vs. Arminian debate, then I'll tell you that everyone becomes a Calvinist as far as this is conserned, arguing that God will save whom God wants to save.

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

Glen Davidson writes: (begin quote) teeny-bopper magazines like Teen and The New Republic (end quote) Perhaps Glen has the New Republic confused with another magazine?

Try reading my post again, and try to get it right this time. It was a paraphrase of what Savage wrote in the Village Voice (c. 2002), as I indicated. The fact is that those who have gone on to learn philosophy, politics, and sociology, will tend to find something with rather more substance than the New Republic has. Like the Village Voice, even, in its better articles. At least they have a glancing knowledge of leftism, which I can hardly say of Peretz's magazine. Yes, TNR was really quite intelligent once upon a time (not in my day), but it's been little more than a part of reactionary liberalism and DLC boosterism for the past few decades. Alexander Cockburn writes more interesting stuff in a single column than one finds in the political sections of TNR (the book section remains fairly good, at least the last time I checked). To get into real substance does require hitting the books, though. Nietzsche, Marx, Jameson, Deleuze. One can get a whole lot of anti-liberalism out of the writings of the well-known Continental philosophers, especially those of the past, than one gets out of reams of magazines, journals, and periodicals. Nevertheless, there is still substance in some of the progressive mags coming out of New York and the old liberal progressives in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Layers above TNR, anyhow. I mostly stick to the books, though, since most everyone has "accommodated" to the present situation, meaning mostly that they've gotten old, comfortable, and interested in maintaining the status quo.

Mike S. · 31 March 2005

I suppose in each case one could argue that the religious participants are "extremists" rather than "fundamentalists", but that's just semantics.
— Chris Caprette

No, it's not. Fundamentalist applies specifically to religion, while extremists can be from any ideological position. You just listed a bunch of conflicts around the globe without making any distinctions between them, then declared they were all due to "fundamentalism". If you define fundamentalism so as to include all the conflicts you mentioned, it's a meaningless word.

As another observation, while I am not so naive as to believe that geographically adjacent but different human cultures always coexisted peacefully until "evil" instigators arrived, (was that a long clause or what?) it seems as though almost all of those conflicts are rooted in foreign idealogues interfering with the governance of diverse peoples. I wonder if that is a "real" causal factor or merely a common thread?

Wait, let me guess - you're a sophmore anthropology student at Smith. No, wait, a freshman at Oberlin. No, I've got it - a junior poli sci major at Cal State Chico! Read Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" - conflict is inherent to human beings, it's not something exported from the developed world to the third world.

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

And I'm no Christian, btw. The only "soul" I believe in is consciousness becoming out of physical processes, probably mostly electrical fields.

Mike S. · 31 March 2005

If this was the basis of Bryan's opposition to evolution, then Bryan misunderstood science as badly as the apologists of Social Darwinism did.
— Air Bear

Some of those apologists were leading scientists.

Ed Darrell · 31 March 2005

If you really want to know why so many people hate evolution, it is to a significant degree due to the despicable attitudes and actions of academics and most other liberals toward other people (with exceptions in both groups, of course).

You mean, they are not driven by data to disbelieve in evolution? Yeah, we knew that.

Great White Wonder · 31 March 2005

Fundamentalist applies specifically to religion, while extremists can be from any ideological position.

How about "religious extremists" then? There's a good take on the term "fundamentalism" here -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

In many ways religious fundamentalism is a modern phenomenon, characterized by a sense of embattled alienation in the midst of the surrounding culture, even where the culture may be nominally influenced by the adherents' religion. The term can also refer specifically to the belief that one's religious texts are infallible and historically accurate, despite contradiction of these claims by modern scholarship. Many groups described as fundamentalist often strongly object to this term because of the negative connotations it carries, or because it implies a similarity between themselves and other groups, which they find objectionable.

Air Bear · 31 March 2005

Prof. Heddle wrote

If you are aware of the predestination Calvinist vs. Arminian debate, then I'll tell you that everyone becomes a Calvinist as far as this is conserned, arguing that God will save whom God wants to save.

The Christian FAQs on raptureready.com say

"In this way, babies cannot sin. God will not damn the one who did not even know sin, nor even have an opportunity to sin! Therefore, babies are saved."

Glen Davidson wrote:

And I'm no Christian, btw. The only "soul" I believe in is consciousness becoming out of physical processes, probably mostly electrical fields.

What we have here is fascinating. The outcry against "baby murder" apparently does not stem from any concern for the eternal salvation of the fetus, but rather from the regret that the fetus will not enjoy this secular life. Who would have thought that the right-to-lifers were really taking up a secular humanist cause? (OK, I know that raptureready.com is loony. But their long list of FAQs follows the teachings of fundamentalist Christianity pretty closely.) (And I know that his belongs on the BW, but the only action there is John Davison' rants.)

Russell · 31 March 2005

The only "soul" I believe in is consciousness becoming out of physical processes, probably mostly electrical fields.

Ah! so you're an Electrist! That explains the barbarity of your remarks. If you had any insight at all into the nature of the soul, you would know it's chemical. But why do I waste my time trying to educate an Electrist? Might as well try to teach a rock to sing.

David Heddle · 31 March 2005

Air Bear,

You are correct, the outcry against abortion has nothing, or at least should have nothing to do with the eternal salvation of the infant, although raptureready is wrong if it says infants are saved because they are sinless.

In the same manner, revulsion over any murder has nothing to do with a worry for the eternal soul of the victim.

What is your point, exactly?

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

Actually, Air Bear, I said little against abortion itself. Though I consider myself opposed, I'm flexible on policy. What I was and am concerned about is that even to say "abortion is murder" is considered to be illegitimate, thus those who disagree with the reigning morality are simply to be dictated to. I did not myself say that "abortion is murder", rather I reacted to the dishonesty of calling such a statement a "lie".

Whatever might become of policy, there is the delegitimization issue to be overcome first. That's one reason I'm not concerned much about policy, for how can anyone discuss moral policy if the dissenting viewpoints are shouted down every time they are raised?

And yes, oddly enough I do value the secular lives of humans, and have not seen how the birth process legitimizes previously meaningless human life. More importantly, I recognize that there are dominant social forces presently opposed to the frequent tendency of truly democratic movements to be inclusive of humanity when defining it. Thus Christianity quickly outlawed the previously legal abortion and infanticide once it gained power, and it happens that minorities and lower classes are generally more opposed to abortion today (if there are any differences in gender, usually it is the females who are slightly more opposed).

Their voices are smothered over, though, as dominant figures "speak for them". I have little or no desire at this time to do anything than to let other voices be heard above the statements of the alpha pairs.

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

If you had any insight at all into the nature of the soul, you would know it's chemical. But why do I waste my time trying to educate an Electrist? Might as well try to teach a rock to sing.

Of course it's chemical, for it explains nothing about the continuity of consciousness. So it is with reductionists, they tend to fall for fundamentally impossible models of "soul" and "consciousness". And I'm no "Electrist", since I have never accepted their "global fields". Consciousness has to be short range, yet "stitch together" across at least single (for instance, visual) fields. That is to say, it must become a whole, but information cannot interact at long distances, instead it must remain in context at short range. Consciousness cannot be in the disconnected chemical reactions of the synapses, rather we need fields to explain "action at a distance" (however short the distance). To say the "soul" is chemical is like saying that electrons only bang together, without interacting at a distance (though of course chemistry might be part of the overall electrical activity of consciousness). It's unscientific at the most basic level.

DAvidF · 31 March 2005

Glen, Many people, including many Christians, are against abortion until they (or someone close to them) actually needs one. Abortion certainly isn't desirable but outlawing it only tends to encourage people to seek either illegal abortions or legal abortions in other countries. Generally it's the minorities and lower classes who are forced into the first option. It would be nice if the "legal but rare" option could replace the polarization we see on this issue whereby it has become almost a touchstone for belief (as either a conservative or a liberal). The Christian view of abortion is interesting in that it's partly based on Exodus;

"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." (Exodus 21:22-23)

The penalty for inducing a miscarriage wasn't death and so, according to this, no murder was involved. No age was put on the foetus. This implies that, even for Christians some middle ground on this issue can to be found - certainly I think that abortions should not only be legal and rare but also, if possible, early, legal and rare.

Jim Harrison · 31 March 2005

Glen Davidson writes, "I always have thought that science was really more threatened by socialist and constructionist/deconstructionist nonsense than by creationism per se." May I take this occasion to sympathize with Mr. Davidson, whose life must be a hell of fear if he manages to worry about something as toothless as modern socialism or academic constructionism.

By the way, the term "Postmodernism" has become such a straw man that I'm not sure it retains any nonrhetorical value. Or have we decided that every attempt to understand the sociology or history of science is automatically illegitimate? I think folks draw the wrong conclusion from the Sokol hoax. Since so much academic stuff is crap, we just don't know whether the postmodern variety has a higher crap index than than the efforts of assistant profs of other persuasions. Drawing a general conclusion from the silliness of one scientifical illiterate author (Andrew Ross) is like shooting a tethered bear and calling yourself a hunter. Not very sporting.

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

One of the results of some particular sin in the Torah is that a woman will miscarry--one presumes according to God's will. Which means that your text isn't the worst one for Biblical literalists.

Nevertheless, neither text would trip up a Catholic or any number of other Christians, since they recognize that the OT had to be superseded. It's also why they're willing to accept the fact that Genesis 1 & 2 are not necessarily history.

But that's about as much as I have to say, since I really was discussing matters other than abortion per se, and I am not a Christian. Nor am I a theist, to narrow it down further.

Jim Harrison · 31 March 2005

Air Bear · 31 March 2005

In response to:
What is your point, exactly?[/qoute]

My point actually has little to do with this thread, though it was provoked by Glen Davidson's post.

The point is:

The modern Religious Right has lost its way, judging at least from the public campaigns of its most vocal leaders. Traditional religious conerns have given way to secular causes. The loudest proponents are more concerned with sexual morality, the status of fetuses, and releasing the power of private companies than they are about salvation. And Christ's compassion for the poor? Forget it.

Check out Focus on the Family. Check out the big mega-churches. They're more about right-wing entertainment and social control than about getting right with God.

Another aspect of this phenomenon is the right-wing co-option of post-modernist concepts of denial of absolute Truth. Back in the good old days, conservative religious leaders insisted on an absolute Truth, but nowadays they claim that all statements of "fact" are politically motivated, and that everything is propoganda. Obviously, this idea needs more elaboration, but this much will do for now.

Again, this belongs on BW, but everybody's on this thread, not there.

(BTW, check out Glen Davidson's email address -- I suspect there's more than a little truth to the "Electrist" accusation ;)

adam · 31 March 2005

GWW asks:

"Has anyone ever offered a compelling argument to the contrary? I don't think any creationist apologist here has ever admitted to being a fundamentalist. But it's unclear to me whether our trolls also deny the existence of fundamentalist religious types in the United States or the correlations of fundamentalism with poverty and political dispossesion in the United States and other parts of the world."

I'm not creationist or a fundamentalist, but I'm not aware of any empirical evidence of any correlation between fundamentalism and poverty or political "dispossesion" (whatever the latter means) in the US or elsewhere.

I did find a CRSP working paper on SSRN, however, that found a positive link between a country's religiosity and what it calls "attitudes condicive to economic growth." Here's the link:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=331280

Does anyone know of a study that looks at how income and religious practices are correlated in the United States?

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

Glen Davidson writes, "I always have thought that science was really more threatened by socialist and constructionist/deconstructionist nonsense than by creationism per se." May I take this occasion to sympathize with Mr. Davidson, whose life must be a hell of fear if he manages to worry about something as toothless as modern socialism or academic constructionism.

Yes, my life is a hell of fear, Jim. I see you're writing to lend a high level of reason to the "discussion". Anyway, when I wrote of "science" I didn't mean science as practiced was threatened (at this point nothing threatens scientific practice), but that legislators and scientifically-illiterate intellectuals often substitute a philosopher's "knowledge" for what science could tell them. The idea that all of human activity is "constructed" continues to underlay many sociological analyses, thereby distorting science.

By the way, the term "Postmodernism" has become such a straw man that I'm not sure it retains any nonrhetorical value. Or have we decided that every attempt to understand the sociology or history of science is automatically illegitimate?

No, we have not, and you have nothing to indicate that I ever suggested anything of the sort. In fact I like some "post-moderns" to an extent, such as Foucault and Deleuze (Nietzscheans both, to a degree at least). Even the latter "post-modern" (Deleuze) is easily abused (and he's less absolute in his social theories of science than is Foucault), though, and often is by those who "analyze" without knowing any scientific context. Don't ascribe positions to me that are contradicted by many of my posts.

Drawing a general conclusion from the silliness of one scientifical illiterate author (Andrew Ross) is like shooting a tethered bear and calling yourself a hunter.

Which is why I didn't draw a general conclusion from Andrew Ross. Why do you persist in misrepresentations of what I have written, what I accept? If you didn't specify me in your broad general conclusion, the context certainly suggests that it was aimed at me as well. Btw, I have things to do other than post the time. So I'm leaving for now, maybe for the rest of the day.

Great White Wonder · 31 March 2005

I did not myself say that "abortion is murder", rather I reacted to the dishonesty of calling such a statement a "lie".

Sorry Glen. I promised I'd leave you and your "new" ideas to wither in the sunlight, but I have returned to inform you that there is nothing dishonest about describing the slogan, "abortion is murder," as a "lie." Of course, you could prove me wrong by showing me an example from the last, say, ten years of a woman convicted of murder in a US court for terminating her own pregnancy. Good luck with that, Glen. Don't let those synapses fire too often. In the meantime, don't engage in apologetics with respect to fundamentalist political scripts. You'll always come out smelling funky, and I don't mean funky like Jimi's second appearance on Cavett's variety show. Oh, I almost forgot to ask: are you by chance related to our resident troll John Davidson? If so, perhaps you can help me locate those missing photos of Cathy Lee Crosby.

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

(BTW, check out Glen Davidson's email address --- I suspect there's more than a little truth to the "Electrist" accusation ;)

Well, just one more short one, since I'm not fond of being lumped with the non-physics based accounts of consciousness by all the Electrists I've encountered. Obviously I've argued consistently for an electric field model, but this model is based solely on neural models of the brain. It is known that electric fields don't penetrate all that far, and more importantly, they usually wouldn't interact in any meaningful manner even a few millimeters away. Perhaps more crucially, I adhere strictly to forces interacting across differences, and do not in the least suppose that the complexity of consciousness can be sustained by the simpleness of in-phase spike trains, such as are found in brain waves. If one wishes to call this "Electrist" in some lump fashion, I suppose it might be appropriate. However I would never subscribe to any of the models I've seen, for they don't take into account actual physics interactions to explain. This probably is the last for a while.

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

One more to the dolt:

Of course, you could prove me wrong by showing me an example from the last, say, ten years of a woman convicted of murder in a US court for terminating her own pregnancy.

Your knowledge of the definition of "murder" is as pathetic as your knowledge of sociology. Look it up in a dictionary, and really, try not to be so stupid.

In the meantime, don't engage in apologetics with respect to fundamentalist political scripts. You'll always come out smelling funky,

All you can do is label. I'll assume it's because of your base ignorance. If you could read even as good as an elementary school student you'd notice that John A. Davison doesn't have the last name as I do, nor do he and I agree on ID in the least. But don't let that stop you from your dishonesty.

Russell · 31 March 2005

RE: "Electrist"...
I can't tell whether people are writing tongue-in-cheek or not, but just to be clear: I was attempting to make a little joke. Reading these comments where a "conservative" (a pretty ill-defined term) automatically assumes that all "liberals" (another pretty ill-defined term) are stupid, lazy, herd-animal, etc. etc... Sorry. I just can't take you seriously. Same goes for vice-versa, incidentally. What is it about the internet that all differences of opinion end up as this kind of pissing contest? Now if someone voluntarily aligns him/herself with some adequately defined movement, like "creationist" or "intelligent design theorist" I think I know something about his/her position. But all this contempt, disdain, all these assumptions about a perspective you really don't know anything about. I just don't get it.

Great White Wonder · 31 March 2005

If you could read even as good as an elementary school student you'd notice that John A. Davison doesn't have the last name as I do, nor do he and I agree on ID in the least.

I dunno. I think there's more than a little bit of our John Davidson in you, and vice versa. What about the crabbit hoax? Were you involved in that in any way? Any Fran Tarkenton memorabilia you'd be interested in selling?

adam · 31 March 2005

Air bear writes:

"The modern Religious Right has lost its way, judging at least from the public campaigns of its most vocal leaders. Traditional religious conerns have given way to secular causes. The loudest proponents are more concerned with sexual morality, the status of fetuses, and releasing the power of private companies than they are about salvation. And Christ's compassion for the poor? Forget it."

Last time I've checked, sexual morality and the protection of innocent life are traditional religious concerns.

Furthermore, it's very unfair to say the religious right lacks compassion for the poor. They just don't believe that government social programs are the best way of helping the poor. They believe private Charities are more effective. Judging by their generous contributions to such charities, they are putting their money where there mouths are.

Chris C. · 31 March 2005

I admit to being guilty of over-reaching on occassion. As I read your commentary I picture a cartoon image of someone with steam pouring out of his ears... either out of anger or frustration - I suspect the former.

No, it's not. Fundamentalist applies specifically to religion, while extremists can be from any ideological position.

I disagree. The second definition of "fundamentalism" in Webster's is "2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles". Under that definition, one could be a US Constitutional Fundamentalist, and I don't have a problem with that. If you want to be restrictive, why don't you just use Webster's definition "1 a: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching?" Although one usually capitalizes the word in that case. I suspect you didn't because then you couldn't apply the word to Islam.

You just listed a bunch of conflicts around the globe without making any distinctions between them, then declared they were all due to "fundamentalism".

Not precisely - I only listed those coflicts as being influenced by religious extremism, not "due to 'fundamentalism'." And I did distinguish among them - you may (or not) want to reread the post.

If you define fundamentalism so as to include all the conflicts you mentioned, it's a meaningless word.

I'm not certain what you mean by "define fundamentalism so as to include all the conflicts". I didn't. I said that religious extremism, which I did equate to fundamentalism earlier in my post, played a role in those diverse conflicts. Mike S. wrote:

Wait, let me guess - you're a sophmore anthropology student at Smith. No, wait, a freshman at Oberlin. No, I've got it - a junior poli sci major at Cal State Chico!

Wow, there are those plumes of ear steam. I wish I could've afforded to go to Smith or Oberlin. I don't know about Cal State Chico - party school? I'm not sure why you feel it necessary to denigrate those fine institutions by implying that their undergraduates post offensively inaccurate opinions. On the other hand, you appear to be one of those persons so bothered by someone politely expressing a contrary opinion that you feel it necessary to bite off his head. Mike S. next wrote:

Read Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" - conflict is inherent to human beings, it's not something exported from the developed world to the third world.

I have read it. If you reread that long (apologies) sentence in my original post, then you should realize that I was not promoting "the noble savage" dogma as your criticism implies. Rather, the point I tried to make was that cultures with great military or economic power have a tendency to control those without such advantages. It is the power differential that is important. Such manipulation appears to have lasting consequences. For example, the earliest conflict between the peoples now called Hutus and Tutsis, that I have read about, occured centuries ago (around 1300) and for quite a long time they coexisted, intermarried, and had relative peace. The cultural intermingling wasn't complete and one culture, the minority Tutsis, managed to maintain control of the society. But they weren't slaughtering each other. Then Europeans came along (Belgians and Germans I think) and managed to stir up the ethnic tensions by exploiting the pre-existing power difference for their own benefit. That in turn led to the unrest that persists to this day. It will probably be a very long time before that unrest dies down. Do you think that the religious beliefs of those Europeans were irrelevant to their role in stirring up the ethnic conflicts in Africa? I probably should've included "the troubles" in Ireland and the mess in the Balkans with the list of conflicts that were driven at least in part by religious extremism and involved manipulation of the warring parties by stronger, foreign governments.

However, when you look at Islamic fundamentalism, the trend is sort of reversed: many members of Al Qaeda are from the middle and upper economic classes, but they come from politically repressed societies.

You should emphasize "sort of". Perhaps by saying in this one case - Al Qaeda - the trend is reversed. Moreover, Al Qaeda managed to impose its extremism on the people of other nations such as Sudan and Afganistan, in large part because Al Qaeda has wealthy benefactors in the form of drug- and oil barons. Also, it seems as though Al Qaeda has used the recent war in Iraq to recruit thousands of impoverished muslims to fight for them against the US. I don't think their recruitment would've been successful if those folks weren't already pretty pissed-off at us. All of which kinda supports the point I was making. In this case, the power differential was between a small but very wealthy and powerful group of violent jerks with extreme religious beliefs (Al Qaeda) and a couple of large groups of people with much less extreme religious beliefs (Afgan Muslims and Sudanese animists & Christians).

Glen Davidson · 31 March 2005

. But all this contempt, disdain, all these assumptions about a perspective you really don't know anything about. I just don't get it.

Sometimes I almost agree with the vicious Ann Coulter, since people like you don't mind lying about whatever you dislike. Of course I know about it, and if you had a modicum of knowledge about these issues you'd at least know enough to shut up when someone goes well beyond your tiny little world. Of course you haven't stated anything of substance yet, just mouthed the appropriate platitudes, stated the lies that will look good to your fellow herd animals. But then you just vindicate every last thing I've said about reactionary liberalism through with your parroted lines. Btw, it's what every single dissenter encounters, from left to right, this self-righteous disdain for whatever you don't know. I went through that stage, but that was in my teens, early twenties, then I learned what you don't even have the capacity to consider. Of course you have to stupidly claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, but naturally you can't show that, or even show that you understand anything not mainstream.

David Heddle · 1 April 2005

DAvidF wrote:

The penalty for inducing a miscarriage wasn't death and so, according to this, no murder was involved.

This is utter nonsense. The Hebrew word translated as miscarriage in the passage DAvidF quoted means, literally, "her child came out." For example, the NIV translates:

If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. (Ex. 21:22, NIV)

Neither the KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV nor the ESV use "miscarriage". This describes that fines are the appropriate punishment providing the child lives. If the child dies, then, as the passage continues, the usual Jewish laws of retribution (eye-for-an-eye) apply. This passage does not support the notion that abortion is not murder.

Russell · 1 April 2005

Glen Davidson:
OK. You're joking, right?
This is April 1, after all.

Air Bear · 3 April 2005

Another faulty Biblical interpretation from the man who says the Bible isn't literally true: Prof. Heddle wrote:

This describes that fines are the appropriate punishment providing the child lives. If the child dies, then, as the passage continues, the usual Jewish laws of retribution (eye-for-an-eye) apply.

The scholarly New English Bible translates Exodus 21:22 as:

When, in the course of a brawl, a man knocks against a pregnant woman so that she has a misciarrage but suffers no further hurt, then the offender must pay whatever fine the woman's husband demands after assessment.

Note the word "miscarrage". The less-scholarly Good News Bible has the passage:

If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child, but she is not injured in any other way, the one who hurt her is to be fined whatever amount the woman's husband demands, subject to the approval of the judges.

Even the King James Version, which Prof. Heddle falsely cites says:

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall surely be punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

The "fruit" is obviously a fetus, not a full-term child. "Fruit" may be a nice image in a poetic section of the Bible, but not in the legal parts. (Just how good do you think premature-baby care was back in those days?) An all of these translations, the above passage is followed by punishment for the "hurt" or "mischief" that didn't happen in the above passage: the usual grim life-for-life, eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth, burn-for-burn, bruise-for-bruise passage that obviously applies to the mother, not the fetus. Prof. Heddle's contention

This describes that fines are the appropriate punishment providing the child lives. If the child dies, then, as the passage continues, the usual Jewish laws of retribution

is further nonsense, because the eye-for-eye formula always applies whether the victim lives or not. Note that the above passage does provide for punishment of the miscarrage-causing assailant, up to what the husband (but not wife!) and judges allow. Clearly, this punishment is for the loss of the fetus, but clearly the fetus is not treated the same as a full human being. In short, Prof. Heddle's interpretation of this passage of the Bible is dead wrong, because it clearly treats a forced miscarriage as a different class of offense than injuring an actual person. And incidentally, he is wrong about the interpretation of the eye-for-eye punishment as well. To be fair to Prof. Heddle, this kind of selective and twisted interpretation of the Bible to achieve a desired outcome, is endemic throughout the Christian religion. Often the worst offenders are liberal Christians, who must strive mightly to explain away a lot of unconfortable text.

Air Bear · 3 April 2005

Prof. Heddle wrote:

Air Bear, You are correct, the outcry against abortion has nothing, or at least should have nothing to do with the eternal salvation of the infant, although raptureready is wrong if it says infants are saved because they are sinless. In the same manner, revulsion over any murder has nothing to do with a worry for the eternal soul of the victim. What is your point, exactly?

My points are: 1) In matters of theology, the people at raptureready.com are professionals and you're an amateur. They also express the mainstream Christian, especially Baptist, viewpoint on infants. 2) The evangelical Christian Right has lost its way theologically. They have turned away from matters eternal and have become obsessed with matters of sex, reproduction, and family relations. The obsessions over abortion and same-sex marriage elevate a set of tiny, and as you agree with abortion, theologically minor issues to major importance. 3) You and others do not express "revulsion over any murder" but only over a particular class of deaths where what's dying is not a full person. I don't see evangelical protesters at my local jail protesting drug-related homicides.

Russell · 3 April 2005

I don't see evangelical protesters at my local jail protesting drug-related homicides.
— Airbear

I'm still waiting for the evangelical outrage over this little faux pas, two years ago now.