If you *want* to talk about religion, you *have* to talk about religion, folks!

[neadods]

ABC has an article on the ID decision in Kansas, spinning it as a win for the Discovery Institute. Which it is - but they're not going to wave the victory flag long if they keep acting like this:

The Discovery Institute denies allegations that its true agenda is religious.

Their public relations representative stopped ABC News' interview when asked about the organization's many evangelical Christian donors.

"I don't think we want to go down that path," he said.

Meyer says no matter who provides financial support, his goals are scientific and that science may one day prove his belief that the intelligent designer is God.

Oh, golly, I could go on for hours just about these few sentences. I'll stick with three:

1) Stopping an interview is the same as standing up and shrieking "I'M HIDING SOMETHING I DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!" and is the world's stupidest way of deflecting a conversation. If you don't want to go down that path, why not say "Most of our doners are not evangelicals." Or - if that's, say, a lie, why not deflect with "many evangelicals also donate to [insert other cause(s) here]" and make it seem like no big deal?

2) The attitude seems to be that refusing to talk about funding is the same as making sure that questions won't ever be asked. I'm sure that Frist and DeLay and the people who ran Enron sincerely wish it worked that way. It doesn't.

3) The Discovery Institute can deny allegations of religion all it wants; its page still refers to God. Also free-market capitalism and American supremacy. It also lists a program on religion and public life. With bonus page praising the Pope's pro-Intelligent Design statement.

(It also claims that No one is proposing that supernatural explanations should be included in science. They just don't want such things entirely ruled out; you see, solely natural explanations of phenomina "subtly shift the emphasis in science education from the investigative process to the end result... and encourages premature answers to scientific questions" for reasons that are never explained.)

Now, taking just those web pages, I suppose it would be possible to argue that acknowledging religion is not the same as endorsing it... until Meyer opens up his mouth and says that he hopes to scientifically prove that there is a God.

Glad to know that there really isn't a religious goal, Meyer.

Comments

[neadods.livejournal.com]

Or Meyer will.

Thing is, if anyone can actually prove God exists, they will become tremendously influential (along, of course, with the huge social and monetary shift of everything moving in that direction and away from the assorted alternatives.) So, while it's a quixotic goal, it's not an unworthy one in itself.

However, I remain convinced that they're not trying to prove anything, they're just trying to take over, and are using the wedge strategy to start in the schools - hearts and minds indeed!

[karenmiller.livejournal.com]

And here's my dilemma. From the other side of the world. *g*

I don't like the aggressive secular agenda, because it leads to things happening I feel are morally reprehensible and just plain bad.

But if the above is the kind of religious agenda/politicising that goes on, I have no choice but to rail against it, putting me (apparently) in the same camp as people I really dislike.

I don't have problems with a secular society, as such -- I absolutely believe in the division of Church and State and my problem with Bush has always been a concern about someone with that much power who sincerely believes God is talking to him, because the problem then becomes, Anything I want to do I can do because it's God's will, conveniently overlooking the human genius for self-rationalisation and justification.

I don't think it's inevitable that that occurs, mind you ... but I'm starting to think it's happened with W. And that makes me sad. Because he's doing more harm to the faith than good.

I don't want a Christian totalitarian state any more than I want the Taliban, because they're exactly the same thing! And I don't want a radical secular agenda in charge either because too many people who follow that path are absolutely only out for themselves and what they can screw out of people under the guise of I don't need any moral guidance or precepts because there's no such thing as right or wrong. Please don't start me on moral relativism.

Yikes!!!!

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

It sounds as if you're making the assumption that the only alternatives are theocracy or moral relativism -- which is in itself one of the troubling symptoms of the theocracy movement. One does not have to have religion in order to have morals and ethics. In fact, I would argue that it is more moral to believe in doing the right thing because it's right, rather than because you fear going to hell if you don't.