Friday, November 18, 2005

George Will takes on "zealots" and their effort to "infuse theism into scientific education."

Interesting reading from a card-carrying conservative, intended for those carrying on the debate in recent NA Health postings:

NA Health: New Data on Hops (see the comments section)
NA Health: The Beauty of Creation

Social conservatives threaten fragile coalition, by George Will (November 17, 2005).

Excerpts from the Will column:

The storm-tossed and rudderless Republican Party should particularly ponder the vote last week in Dover, Pa., where all eight members of the school board seeking re-election were defeated. This expressed the community's wholesome exasperation with the board's campaign to insinuate religion, in the guise of ''intelligent design'' theory, into high school biology classes, beginning with a required proclamation that evolution ''is not a fact.''

But it is. And President Bush's straddle on that subject -- ''both sides'' should be taught -- although intended to be anodyne, probably was inflammatory, emboldening social conservatives ...

... ''It does me no injury,'' said Thomas Jefferson, ''for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.'' But it is injurious, and unneighborly, when zealots try to compel public education to infuse theism into scientific education.

Our friend HB, a "zealot"? Say it ain't so, HB.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Depending on your definition of zealot. It was first used to describe people belonging to a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century A.D. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine. This of course I am not.

A fanatical partisan. I am partisan, but not fanatical.

One who is zealous, especially excessively so. Again, I admit to being zealous, but not excessively so.

My goal is to get you thinking about why you believe the way you do, what motivates your thinking, where and how you base your moral decisions, how you define good and evil, why and how you love and where and what do you base your values.

Everyone blogging has strong convictions in these areas and I am just trying to get each of you to go a little deeper in where these values originate. A lot of these are against naturalism and the natural world and therefore I just want to see where it takes some of you.

It is certainly working because there has been more thought and discussion.

I have been very open about my stance. I have not asked or advocated for anyone to change their views, beliefs or morals. But I will not always agree with your views.

If that makes me a zealot in your eyes, then I accept the title.

Tim Deatrick said...

i find it interesting that the Republican contolled Indiana legislature intends to bring the intelligent design issue up in the 2006 session, again trying to create a wedge issue in an election year. it might be a good idea to ask our resident George Bush cheerleader and Gubernatorial appointee to the Greenway commission how she feels about that initiative, of course that would require her to post on here using an actual name.

I agree with you roger , the Republicans have become a band of religious zealots under the Bush mantra, unlike my favorite republican from years past Gerald Ford who did not use God and christianity as a tool to divide and conquer.

jbarthold said...

As a public school teacher, I don't have a problem with the reintroduction of the pledge...I do question the 10 sec. moment of silence..becoming some lame non-sectarian prayer. Belief is the responsibility of the home..don't ask us to be teacher/preacher/moral compass...we bust ass just focusing on our subject matter...Keep intelligent design out of our public schools...folks...IT'S NOT SCIENCE

The New Albanian said...

I've welcomed HB to the community, and zealot or not, look forward to the debates and discussions.

It should be clear that the New Albanian is as secular as HB is faith-based.

Vive la difference, at least until the true zealots take to peeing on my side of the pool.

Brandon W. Smith said...

Well, even if they pee on their side, it still kinda fouls things up in the entire pool, no? ;>

The New Albanian said...

I was HOPING someone would come back with that!

ceece said...

reminds me of a favorite quote...

"Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant like having a peeing section in a pool?"