I’m sorry—I got to the end and realized I made a post that is way too long—sorry

Last Thurs Dec 6 Mitt Romney made a speech on religion which has been compared to one JFK made (where JFK said his Catholicism would not be a factor in how he served as President).

Widely reported but here is NY TImes the next day
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/us/politics/07romney.html

This has drawn immediate and continuing comments. Also on Dec 7 we have an Op-Ed article by David Brooks addressing Romney’s comments,
entitled “Faith vs. the Faithless”
[Link to Dec 7 2007 column by David Brooks Faith vs. the Faithless]
The problem Brooks identified was that Romney

“argued that the religious have a common enemy: the counter-religion of secularism” and that “There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious.”

This is going to be a recurring issue in the campaign.

In today’s Dec 08 NY Times there are letters to the editor as well as a comment in the column by Gail Collins:
["Everything’s Perfect But..."]
She noted that Romney was appealing to voters in Iowa. She also noted

“Iowans are not the only people who are looking for a Republican to root for. We were all waiting to see if Mitt might be the much-yearned-for Inclusive One. So it was disheartening to discover that the Romney big tent does not seem to have any space for nonbelievers.”

Peggy Noonan in WSJ today 12/8
["Mormon in America"]
had similar comments

There was one significant mistake in the speech. I do not know why Romney did not include nonbelievers in his moving portrait of the great American family. We were founded by believing Christians, but soon enough Jeremiah Johnson, and the old proud agnostic mountain men, and the village atheist, and the Brahmin doubter, were there, and they too are part of us, part of this wonderful thing we have. Why did Mr. Romney not do the obvious thing and include them? My guess: It would have been reported, and some idiots would have seen it and been offended that this Romney character likes to laud atheists. And he would have lost the idiot vote.

My feeling is we’ve bowed too far to the idiots. This is true in politics, journalism, and just about everything else.

Finally, on the science side a group called ScienceDebate2008 is forming to (as I see it) force a discussion of science and reality into the presidential campaign. I first heard about it in a WSJ op-ed by Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve on Thurs Dec 6:

["Science and the Candidates"] (this is link from Krauss at Case Western so link will be easy)
Krauss notes that when avian flu was a concern, people turned to scientific studies to determine if it was a threat to humans. Not to Intelligent Design.

In spite of the ambivalence reflected in some polls, there is a popular understanding that science and technology will be essential to meet the challenges we face as a society.

<>

Zarcus has found the essential links—thanks!

Sciencedebate 2008 - HERE

Yes, it’s a good thing to push for—a presidential debate on science and science policy. Best of luck to them.

Yes it is.  And, it looks like an excellent steering committee too.

Also, everyone who reads this post PLEASE go to the ScienceDebate 2008 link that zarcus posted above and sign up as a supporter.

Sounds like a great idea - sort of like listening to a discussion of Picasso at the Braille institute. 

Occam

erasmusinfinity - 11 December 2007 05:32 AM

Yes it is.  And, it looks like an excellent steering committee too.

Also, everyone who reads this post PLEASE go to the ScienceDebate 2008 link that zarcus posted above and sign up as a supporter.

It would be nice to see this snowball.

On Sat when I posted there were 3 hits on Google.
Sun 40
Mon 140
Tues 263

Sun 12/29 “about 12,900”

If it keeps doubling.

<>

Jackson - 11 December 2007 07:31 PM

erasmusinfinity - 11 December 2007 05:32 AM

Yes it is.  And, it looks like an excellent steering committee too.

Also, everyone who reads this post PLEASE go to the ScienceDebate 2008 link that zarcus posted above and sign up as a supporter.

It would be nice to see this snowball.

On Sat 12/08 when I posted there were 3 hits on Google.
Sun 40
Mon 140
Tues 263

Thurs 12/13 “about 12,900 sites”

I just heard a good plug and discussion on The Humanist Network News podcast.  Google search site count to date = 2,710,000 (1/31/08)

ask the theists this:

explain the existence of Adactylidium.

if God exists then why did he create a species where a mothers unborn progeny eat her alive from the inside out and whose only son copulates with and impregnates his eight other sisters before they are even born only to die when he cuts his way out of his mothers dead body?

truthaddict - 04 February 2008 08:04 AM

… son copulates with and impregnates his eight other sisters before they are even born only to die when he cuts his way out of his mothers dead body?

I think the male actually dies inside his mother. Maybe not always, not sure,…

Excellent point truthaddict!  And why did he create a species of hairless ape who insist on torturing and killing one another in masses over his name?  Why is there Famine?  Rape?  Hurricanes?  Blizzards?  Sour milk?  Paris Hilton?

Christian apologists categorize these things as “the problem of evil” and usually right them off with such quaint words as “the lord works in mysterious ways.” It seems to me that any rational person would recognize that if there were a lord, it’s clear that he works in terrible ways.

Apologists really ought to stop apologizing for Him.  Its about time he starts doing the apologizing himself, that sadistic old sod.  Cause he’s sure got more than his share to do.  I woud reckon more than any mortal that has ever lived.

i like it when i hear “free will” as the answer to the problem of evil.

even if we adopt “free will” for ourselves that doesnt excuse the Lord, cuz he is (allegedly) omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

free will has nothing to do with knowing what evil you create before it happens. so if it exists then it was intentional. which means God intended on all the suffering in the world; God intended on creating a species whose mother is eaten alive from the inside-out by her own children who before cutting their way out of her dead womb also partake in incest. God’s feelings for the male mite of this order was “your life will not be fulfilled and complete untill you kill your mother by eating her alive and impregnating your sisters. After that you can leave her womb and die in peace.”

If God is so smart (omniscient) he should have known that giving us free will would lead to all kinds of horrors.  If he were to exist and have the attributes ascribed to him, it would all be his fault.

Most likely any candidate that could present what we regarded as a good position in a science debate would probably be unelectable.

The people he didn’t put to sleep would be opposed to him.  This IS America.

What do you mean we put men on the moon?  It must ba a hoax. 

psik