Comment

Creationist Governor Featured Speaker at RNC Meeting

402
zombie7/21/2009 12:27:57 pm PDT

re: #297 Sharmuta

You’ve been a staunch advocate for getting creationism out of the GOP in the past.

Now you just confuse me.

I wager that I am the strongest evolution advocate on LGF. I’ve been arguing with creationists here since 2004, long before it was even a standard topic of discussion. The reason i don’t vociferously argue about it anymore is simply that I believe there’s nothing left to argue about — creationism has 0% scientific credibility, and I’m not going to re-argue the same points over and over til the end of time with every newbie creationist troll.

And I would just LOVE it if being an aggressive creationist immediately disqualified any politician from running for office. Unfortunately, reality is reality, and there are a lot of creationists in the country, and a lot of them choose to run for office. And others vote for them and get the creationists elected. I’m not happy about that, but facts is facts.

So now that puts me in a “lesser of two evils” situation. Being a creationist is a black mark against any politician in my book, but it is not the be-all-and-end-all litmus test. If a creationist politician who is good in other areas runs against a non-creationist who is bad in those other areas — I’ll likely vote for the creationist.

The 2004 presidential elelction is a good example. I suspected even then that Bush was a private creationist or semi-creationist as the quotes above show, but the country needed a president to press the Iraq War to victory. It was obvious that Bush had the intention of winning the Iraq War, which is exactly what he did, to his eternal credit. And it was just as obvious that Kerry planned to cut and run, leaving the Middle East and the rest of the world in a terrible mess. But Kerry was pro-evolution.

So: Do i choose the evolutionist over the creationist, based on that one issue? Or do I choose the person who I think will be best for the world overall, taking all issues into account?

As it turned out, I chose the best overall, and voted against the evolutionist.

I’m not happy about this state of affairs, and will dance a happy dance if the GOP nominates someone who accepts evolution, but if they go ahead with a creationist anyway in 2012 — I once again will have to sit down and choose from among the lesser of two evils.

The most obvious example: In a Palin (creationist) vs. Obama (evolutionist) race, I’d almost certainly vote Palin, because the other issues (fiscal responsibility, support for Israel, vigorous foreign policy) are in Palin’s favor, and they trump creationism in importance.

At least, that’s my take on the situation.

I’m as upset — more upset, actually — as anyone that people still cling to the incoherent jumble-sale philosophies known as “conservativism” and “liberalism”, which are both a frustrating patchwork of internally contradictory philosophies. I’m looking for a new political orientation, so I’ll have to create it myself. Which I plan to do.