Here we go again with parroted talking points.

I notice you didn’t address a single fact in the post — just one misdirection after another.

And no — I am not “anti-Christian.” I am, however, strongly opposed to allowing religious fundamentalists to determine the political direction of the United States.

No talking points, Charles. I don’t deal in them — and as someone who believes in evolution, teaches evolution, and tells my students that evolution is the best theory out there in terms of the origins of life and species, I am no creationist.

What I pointed out, Charles, is a bigotry that you confirm in your response. You apparently hold a certain segment of believers in contempt, and want to make sure that they and those who might agree with them on some points are marginalized. That makes you no different than Richard Dawkins and his ilk.

Do you deny, for example, ridiculing Jindal’s religious beliefs in regards to spiritual issues and the ability of God to intervene in the world? Do you deny implying that close association with the holders of certain religious beliefs ought to be a disqualifying factor for political office? Do you deny using “six degrees of separation” tactics to connect Jindal to actual extremists, despite the fact that he clearly is not one?

And Sharmuta — i didn’t argue that evolution was undermined by any current evidence. You assert, ex cathedra, that the bill is nothing more than a stealth creationism bill. As a teacher, I’ve had students come to me complaining that they have been threatened with lower grades for even raising questions about the sanctity of evolution. That is what this bill addresses — and is a key academic freedom issue in my book. Besides, it is not creationism to admit that there are holes and gaps and questions in the currently accepted evolutionary model — it is intellectual honesty that those of us who believe (and teach) evolution must be willing to accept, admit, and acknowledge even as we stand up for evolution as the best available theory.