Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Why Science Can't Save the Republican Party
by TIME
Reposted from:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1688769,00.html?xid=rss-nation
Mouse stem cells.
No one is happier than I am about the latest development in stem-cell research. Scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have independently figured out how to turn ordinary human skin cells into something like pluripotent stem cells. These are the cells that have caused so much excitement in recent years because they are like a biological gift certificate that can be turned into other kinds of cells as needed. These cells have also produced much controversy because they are derived from human embryos. I have the disease — Parkinson's — for which stem cells hold the most immediate promise. The hope is that they can be turned into the type of brain cells that produce dopamine, the missing ingredient in Parkinson's patients.
The stem-cell announcement also brought happiness to many politicians, especially Republicans. It filled them with the hope that the whole messy issue could go away. If stem cells, or something like them, can be obtained without the use of embryos, that eliminates the supposed ethical problem that led President George W. Bush to ban almost all federal financing of embryonic-stem-cell research in 2001. The result has been a severe reduction in embryonic-stem-cell research. The issue has been agony for many Republicans, torn between the majority of voters, eager for the benefits of this scientific advance, and the small but intense minority who believe that a clump of a few dozen cells floating in a petri dish has the same human rights as you or I.
But any Republicans who think the stem-cell breakthrough gets them off the hook are going to end up very unhappy. This issue will not go away.
First, even the scientists who achieved the latest success believe strongly that embryonic-stem-cell research should continue. No one knows for sure whether the new method of producing pluripotent cells will pan out or where the next big developments will come from. We are still many thresholds away from anything that can be of practical value to me and others. Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up.
Second, even if this were a true turning point in stem-cell research, people like me are not going to quickly forget those six lost years. I am 56. Last year I had a kind of brain surgery that dramatically reduces the symptoms of Parkinson's. It received government approval only five years ago. Every year that goes by, science opens new doors, and every year, as you get older and your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom doors may not open until it is time for them to shut.
Third, although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies") involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells.
Finally, the position a politician takes on an issue tells you something about his or her character, values and intellect. And that understanding doesn't disappear even if the issue itself does. Over the past six years, Bush and most Republicans in Congress have done their best to stop medical research that could cure many diseases, including one that I have. They claimed that morality and ethics required no less, yet they demonstrated by their indifference toward in vitro fertilization that they couldn't possibly be serious about this. Now they hope that science will spring them from the trap they walked into with full knowledge. Bush Administration apologists even say the President deserves credit because he directed research away from embryonic stem cells and encouraged scientists to look for more acceptable alternatives. In fact, the new research would not have been possible without the kind involving embryonic stem cells, which Bush believes is immoral.
The stem-cell issue is going away? 'Fraid not.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1688769,00.html?xid=rss-nation
Mouse stem cells.
No one is happier than I am about the latest development in stem-cell research. Scientists in Japan and Wisconsin have independently figured out how to turn ordinary human skin cells into something like pluripotent stem cells. These are the cells that have caused so much excitement in recent years because they are like a biological gift certificate that can be turned into other kinds of cells as needed. These cells have also produced much controversy because they are derived from human embryos. I have the disease — Parkinson's — for which stem cells hold the most immediate promise. The hope is that they can be turned into the type of brain cells that produce dopamine, the missing ingredient in Parkinson's patients.
The stem-cell announcement also brought happiness to many politicians, especially Republicans. It filled them with the hope that the whole messy issue could go away. If stem cells, or something like them, can be obtained without the use of embryos, that eliminates the supposed ethical problem that led President George W. Bush to ban almost all federal financing of embryonic-stem-cell research in 2001. The result has been a severe reduction in embryonic-stem-cell research. The issue has been agony for many Republicans, torn between the majority of voters, eager for the benefits of this scientific advance, and the small but intense minority who believe that a clump of a few dozen cells floating in a petri dish has the same human rights as you or I.
But any Republicans who think the stem-cell breakthrough gets them off the hook are going to end up very unhappy. This issue will not go away.
First, even the scientists who achieved the latest success believe strongly that embryonic-stem-cell research should continue. No one knows for sure whether the new method of producing pluripotent cells will pan out or where the next big developments will come from. We are still many thresholds away from anything that can be of practical value to me and others. Scientifically, it makes no sense to abandon any promising avenue just because another has opened up.
Second, even if this were a true turning point in stem-cell research, people like me are not going to quickly forget those six lost years. I am 56. Last year I had a kind of brain surgery that dramatically reduces the symptoms of Parkinson's. It received government approval only five years ago. Every year that goes by, science opens new doors, and every year, as you get older and your symptoms perhaps get worse, doors get shut. Six years of delay in a field moving as fast as stem-cell research means a lot of people for whom doors may not open until it is time for them to shut.
Third, although the political dilemma that stem cells pose for politicians is real enough, the moral dilemma is not and never was. The embryos used in stem-cell research come from fertility clinics, which otherwise would discard them. This has been a powerful argument in favor of such research. Why let these embryos go to waste? But a more important point is, What about fertility clinics themselves? In vitro fertilization ("test-tube babies") involves the purposeful creation of multiple embryos, knowing and intending that most of them either will die after implantation in the womb or, if not implanted, will be discarded or frozen indefinitely. Even if all embryonic-stem-cell research stopped tomorrow, this far larger mass slaughter of embryos would continue. There is no political effort to stop it. Bush even praised in vitro fertilization in his 2001 speech about the horrors of stem-cell research. In vitro has become too popular for politicians to take on. But their failure to do so makes a mockery of their alleged agony over embryonic stem cells.
Finally, the position a politician takes on an issue tells you something about his or her character, values and intellect. And that understanding doesn't disappear even if the issue itself does. Over the past six years, Bush and most Republicans in Congress have done their best to stop medical research that could cure many diseases, including one that I have. They claimed that morality and ethics required no less, yet they demonstrated by their indifference toward in vitro fertilization that they couldn't possibly be serious about this. Now they hope that science will spring them from the trap they walked into with full knowledge. Bush Administration apologists even say the President deserves credit because he directed research away from embryonic stem cells and encouraged scientists to look for more acceptable alternatives. In fact, the new research would not have been possible without the kind involving embryonic stem cells, which Bush believes is immoral.
The stem-cell issue is going away? 'Fraid not.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, December 2, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 46 of 46 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #93221 by NormanDoering on December 2, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Science won't save the Republican party, but alas, it's not going to crush it into a bloody pulp either -- and that was something that could have been seen on the horizon back in 2001 and 2002. If embryonic stem cells had led to the incredible cures of the kind imagined (and outdated) in Ron Reagan junior's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention then Bush would have been toast. So, the Republicans are getting off easy -- they were lucky this time.Other Comments by NormanDoering
3. Comment #93246 by Quine on December 2, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Please see my embryo deaths question from earlier today. Other Comments by Quine
4. Comment #93247 by tacitus on December 2, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Excellent article, but most Republicans don't want to hear it. IVF makes a mockery of their stance on embryonic stem cell research and they can do is conveniently forget to mention it when they talk about stem cells.Other Comments by tacitus
5. Comment #93255 by dazzjazz on December 2, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Yet again the theist choose the greater of two evils and shot themselves in the foot!Other Comments by dazzjazz
6. Comment #93284 by Kell on December 2, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Quine: have you emailed your question to PZ? Tis a good question, and I'd also be interested in the answer. Other Comments by Kell
7. Comment #93332 by Russell's Teapot on December 2, 2007 at 6:16 pm
This article should be "Why [any noun] Can't Save the Republican Party". They've been beyond hope since Reconstruction. Other Comments by Russell's Teapot
8. Comment #93341 by Quine on December 2, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Thanks Kell,I did send PZ a PM over at the RD forum and also started a thread there so folks could feed back info.
Other Comments by Quine
9. Comment #93343 by eric.malitz on December 2, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Just devil's advocating for a minute but it seems to me science will be both the best friend and worst enemy of the environment. Millions more humans saved from natural causes of death means millions more industrial waste and millions less acres of land for other species.At least this is medical science, I guess environmental science's main concern is undoing everything that previous science or careless humans did wrong.
Sorry, just felt like saying it, and this probably isnt the place, but from someone who cares about the environment the prospect of saving millions and millions of (human) lives from natural death seems a pretty scary thing for the long term existence of every species, including humans themselves.
Again, just devil's advocating though, I am supportive of all science, within 'reason's' reason.
I am not, for example, supportive in any way of current (emotionally or physically cruel) animal testing though i understand its importance to this point. I feel that cures for most disease will be the ultimate undoing of this planet's current species (atleast most mammals, birds, reptiles, fish etc).
Theres nothing I can say in the short term that will convince people of this. I as well understand the importance of science in all its forms for any progressive change (environmental changes included) and wouldnt deny the obvious: that if the 'cure' whatever it was, was to help me or someone I love in that situation, there would be no denying it. Ironic? Pathetic? Sad? I think all.
Other Comments by eric.malitz
10. Comment #93351 by devolve on December 2, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Try to imagine any modern-day Republican saying the following in public:*** On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism.***
That speaker's political career would be over in an instant today. But that's Barry Goldwater, a relic of the days before the Republican party became the Jesus Party.
Other Comments by devolve
11. Comment #93392 by Vaal on December 3, 2007 at 4:19 am
What? You mean President Bush doesn't want to clone himself? Maybe a hundred or two of him? Other Comments by Vaal
12. Comment #93440 by lulando on December 3, 2007 at 6:46 am
Is Death a Valid Concept?Is death still a valid concept in our society? Or have all of us chosen to live in permanent denial? We do not want to loose our youth, do not accept illness, or old age. We ask more or less gifted surgeons design our bodies to our liking - often risking severe health damages and extensive costs. If ill, we demand instant and full repair and Old Age is almost politically incorrect. Does it ever occur to anyone, that health and life are not the most precious values we have? If we accept any action, in order to rescue one's own life, we will end up in a society, where the powerful will order their employees go hunting for the body parts they need and if found in a living human being defend their actions as self-defence. They will either offer a large amount of money for the heart/liver/lungs and promise to pay to the family ...or just take it. They will have lawyers arguing, the situation would be comparable to two castaways struggling over a life vest. No one can expect of you to give up your life voluntarily, can they?
Does it ever occur to anyone, that such is human life?
We are born, we live and we die.
.lu :: http://en.lulando.de :: lu [at] lulando [dot] de
Other Comments by lulando
13. Comment #93523 by arogop on December 3, 2007 at 11:10 am
I would like to point out that when we attack a label, like Republican, we tend lose that argument.Not all Republicans are theists. Not all Republican oppose stem cell research. Not all Republicans fear Science and Reason. When you lump us all together you truly show ignorance.
Attack issues and ideas, not labels.
I am an atheist-Republican. I support science.
Can you imagine how stupid I would sound if I said that the members of this site are a bunch of Birkenstock wearing, narrow minded, left wing whackos! I would be wrong. (on the last two ;) )
Other Comments by arogop
14. Comment #93532 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 12:00 pm
arogop wrote:I am an atheist-Republican. I support science.
I would like to point out that that this makes arogop even stupider than a theist. It might be okay to have been a Republican, but it's not okay to be one now.
The Republicans have betrayed every principal of old fashioned conservatism they espoused. They're the ones driving up spending under Bush. Yea, Bush cut taxes, but he racked up trillions in debt.
Did you even see Bible-boy at the last Republican debate?
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/11/roves-frankenstein.html
Other Comments by NormanDoering
15. Comment #93537 by arogop on December 3, 2007 at 12:25 pm
14. Comment #93532 by NormanDoering "I would like to point out that that this makes arogop even stupider than a theist. It might be okay to have been a Republican, but it's not okay to be one now."
--------------------------
Thank you for that very kind statement. And people wonder why Republicans have been able to win so many elections with questionable candidates. Its called the "big tent".
"The Republicans have betrayed every principal of old fashioned conservatism they espoused."
An excellent example of what I am talking about. Do you lump in the Log Cabin Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Libertarian Republicans, Kemp Republicans, etc. with your broad statements.
Would you like to actually win the atheist argument, or would you like to go back to being ignored next election too?
Other Comments by arogop
16. Comment #93555 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 1:25 pm
See, I told you arogop was stupid.Do you lump in the Log Cabin Republicans, Rockefeller Republicans, Libertarian Republicans, Kemp Republicans, etc. with your broad statements.
Yep. I do. They were all dumb enough to vote against their own self interests. The Log Cabin Republicans got Bush trying to add a marriage amendment to the constitution, the Rockefeller Republicans got the highest debt yet along with Libertarian Republicans who also got Terri Schiavo.
Would you like to actually win the atheist argument?
Yep, but that can wait. This time out I'm asking why are you so stupid. To answer that question you'll have to tell us why you are a Republican.
So, why are you a Republican considering everything they've done these last years? What do you think they did right?
Other Comments by NormanDoering
17. Comment #93572 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Come on, arogop. Either you have a reasonable, intelligent reason to be a Republican today or you have a stupid reason to be one. I assume it's stupid because I can't imagine a good reason to be a Republican.Now is your chance to prove me wrong.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
18. Comment #93576 by arogop on December 3, 2007 at 2:20 pm
16. Comment #93555 by NormanDoering Your courtesy to me is just overwhelming.
In the two party system (I will assume you know what that means) those who vote for one issue and only one issue will usually be disappointed.
The groups of people I have listed understand this and vote Republican because it is the party that best represents their core beliefs. Their group label comes in play to show where they differ.
I have explained before and will review for you again. I am a Republican and tend to vote Republican because of the following beliefs. The higher the ranking the more important.
1. I support Capitalism and free markets. In my opinion, this is the fastest way to bring about advancement in technology and to improve the wealth effect for everyone. I do believe in some regulation of said "free markets". Pure Capitalism will not work. We are not Ferengy.
2. I believe that less Government is better. I prefer that the tax base for the federal government be only large enough to support the basic obligations of the Constitution.
3. I believe in preserving the greatest number of freedoms for individuals.
Yes, I believe that my party has strayed from my core beliefs, yet it still represents me better than the alternative. I do my political fighting in the primaries.
These days the biggest opponent inside of "my party" is the religious fundamentalist. It used to be that we could ignore them and "live and let live".
But of course you already know that since you are so much smarter than me.
Other Comments by arogop
19. Comment #93580 by arogop on December 3, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Norman- I find your writing style interesting. It reminds me of the loud mouth bully on the playground who taunts and teases people in front of his friends cause he thinks it makes him cool.Are you overcompensating for something?
Other Comments by arogop
20. Comment #93584 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Thank you, arogop, for giving me your reasons. They are exactly what I thought - stupid.I will take each one apart on my blog later tonight:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/
Other Comments by NormanDoering
21. Comment #93587 by arogop on December 3, 2007 at 2:53 pm
So I guess you are saying that Capitalism is stupid. That Libertarian beliefs are also stupid. Thanks for your thoughtful insight. I will cherish your wisdom.Andrew
Other Comments by arogop
22. Comment #93589 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 3:01 pm
arogop wrote:So I guess you are saying that Capitalism is stupid.
Nope. But you are saying that Democrats are anti-Capitalism.
That Libertarian beliefs are also stupid.
Yep. Big "L," extreme, Libertarian beliefs are stupid.
Thanks for your thoughtful insight. I will cherish your wisdom.
Wait and see. I have not written my response yet. You're just digging the hole for your stupidness deeper.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
23. Comment #93604 by arogop on December 3, 2007 at 5:38 pm
I quiver with anticipation. Now keep in mind how stupid I am. You may have to explain your superior topics to me slowly.A simple study of modern history in the US does not support the concept that Dems are more open to free trade and Capitalism than the Reps. Fortunately there are only a handful of people who are anti-Capitalism. However most of then are associated with the Labor movement in the US.
Andrew
"Whose shovel is getting dull"
Other Comments by arogop
24. Comment #93651 by NormanDoering on December 3, 2007 at 8:16 pm
You're famous now arogop:http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/are-republicans-stupid.html
Here are the last two paragraphs:
So, there you have it: Stupid reasons that some people are still Republicans. Three mostly meaningless, ego-flattering platitudes that the Republican party pretends to stand for but doesn't. The new, Christianist Republican party is opposed to all three of those things. They want bigger, intrusive government, which is what you'll get if the individual freedom implied by Roe v. Wade is overturned. And who knows what other laws they'd like to put back on the books. They want corporate and church welfare too.
And even if they didn't want those things, in order to stand for them you have to be against someone who opposes them. So, the platitudes automatically imply that Hillary, Barack and Joe Biden are against Capitalism, free markets and individual freedom. I don't think they are. So, the platitudes are empty lies.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
25. Comment #93695 by eric.malitz on December 3, 2007 at 11:40 pm
arogop-I know very little of politics actually, and have never gotten a straight response when I ask- what do republicans IN GENERAL think about the environment (or what do you think?) It always seems that the environment is simply pushed aside in the name of human progress. This is a position I am against.
All the modern republicans in govenment seem to be fairly backwards thinking. The countries in western europe, so im told, are much more progressive countries. How do you reconcile this?
thanks
Other Comments by eric.malitz
26. Comment #93697 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 3, 2007 at 11:48 pm
I cannot imagine, how anyone espousing the views of arogop could possibly imagine that the republicans could be the vehicle to deliver those goals.It seems an extreme form of self delusion, brought on by the "cheese or breadsticks" menu on offer in the US.
Proportional representation would go a long way to resolving the excruciating cognotive dissonace brought on by the republican/democrat offerings.
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
27. Comment #93704 by tybowen on December 4, 2007 at 12:59 am
Its not as if the democrats are a better vehicle to deliver arogop's goals. (I'm an independent which gives me very little say in the major candidates who will become leaders, I just couldn't stomach either party) I agree that proportional representation would be a great boon to resolving the conflict, but there is not an explicit reason in the constitution for there not to be proportional representation (except in the case of President, where a majority is required) (There might be clauses in individual state constitutions, but those are easier to change). The main impediment is that the dominant parties in Congress have just set up many hoops and artificial obstacles to prevent third party candidates from holding any power (seniority, party appointments, etc.). A third party candidate has no easy way of obtaining a position of power in congress, and is usually voted out when his electorate sees that their state was under represented, and their congressman was marginalized. Congressional reform is needed but not on a constitutional level. Amendment 16 is the major constitutional road block that needs to me removed. Other Comments by tybowen
28. Comment #93784 by arogop on December 4, 2007 at 8:03 am
24. Comment #93651 by NormanDoering That's it. I waited all day for that feeble answer. I thought you were smart. I guess I assumed wrong.
Turns out you wanted a shameless plug for your website, which is not all that great. I do really like your skull graphic though. My daughter thinks it's neat.
Again, you are falling into the trap that weakens your arguments. When attacking an idea do not use large category "generic" labels. When you understand that you can start to dissect and address the specific issues that you want to, and you may actually be able to win some arguments with me.
Let me teach you about the Republican Party. We learn a very valuable lesson from the Democrats a number of decades ago. In order to win we needed coalitions. We needed to have a large number of fragmented groups come together and push for specific leadership positions. It started from my understanding with Reagan. Remember his 11th commandment.
The problem now is that with our big tent policy we have people that do not necessary subscribe to the traditional core beliefs of the party actually running it. Read in those with a strong religious bent. It does also appear to be happening with the Democrats as well just not as effectively, but your time is also coming. This new breed of power hungry fundamentalists are not going away easily.
In SCI AM I read a piece by Dawkins. It is material that I had not been exposed to before. I read his book TGD and went from a non practicing Atheist to a practicing Atheist. Which is why I am here.
You do not have to welcome me with open arms; I am not that kind of guy. But you should use me to understand better what is going on out there so we can mobilize against them, together. You would be much more successful to have an old line Republican working with you from inside of my party. (hopefully I can shed them all off onto you) :)
Andrew
Other Comments by arogop
29. Comment #93817 by arogop on December 4, 2007 at 9:01 am
25. Comment #93695 by eric.malitzEric- Very good question. Let me try to address it from my perspective.
Nobody wants dirty water, air, soil, etc. The question comes down to how important it is to you and what you are willing to spend on it. You also need to determine how clean is clean. Finally you need to address how good is the science backing up our concerns.
Let's take the city water supply. I live in Wisconsin and we have more than anyone in the world with the exception of maybe Michigan or Ontario. (The water utility spends more money than they take in, I would like to see them charge more to support their operations, but we do need to make sure clean water is affordable to everyone.) We treat and filter the water that we deliver. If we are willing to spend the money on it we can use reverse osmosis techniques and remove everything. I would say that is wasteful. However, with actual science and a little common sense we can say that we would like to keep certain levels of bacteria, heavy metals, etc to a certain Parts Per Million level.
As a Republican I believe that we should spend enough money on cleaning our water to keep things at a safe level. If actual scientific data says we should have a lower level of pollutants then let's do it. That's the cost of doing business and living where we want too. I do not think we should crash our economy and spend willy nilly on things that are unproven. If we have concerns then lets get the facts out, label things properly, and let people make educated choices.
I also believe that people should take responsibility for their own lives. If we tell you that something is bad for you then you can make your own choice about whether or not to engage in that risky type of behavior.
With the water example, if we think that farm run off is polluting our drinking water then we need to get out the facts that we know, admit what we do not, and offer incentives to the farmer to change his practices until we know for sure. Then, if we can prove the problem, let's legislate all future actions that have not begun and start working with the "grandfathered" actions to bring them to an end.
I hope that provides some insight in how I address individual situations.
I live in Wisconsin, we claim to have founded the progressive movement. Our last Republican governor, Tommy Thompson, believed very strongly in conserving land and put more land under state protection than any other that I can get good data for. I support that. As a Native Wisconsin Orchid hunter I can appreciate those efforts. However he did spend a little too much money. I would like to have seen him join forces with some liberal groups to raise private funds to do this, but alas his pride did not let him do it.
I support the push to make all new vehicles on the road flex fuel vehicles. (I drive two flex fuel vehicles.) This can by us time on the oil issue, give consumers a choice, support Local Farmers, and start the ball rolling. I think we should spend federal and state money to get this moving. We should spend money on the hydrogen issue as well, but let's try to create incentives to get the private sector to soak up the costs.
Species. Biodiversity is a precious resource. We should protect it. End whale hunting permanently. Stop the spread of invasive species (garlic mustard etc.), thus reducing the stress on native populations.
I would be happy to share any other beliefs you want me too. Just ask… nicely.
Andrew
PS Because of the hunting issue we have not always been backwards on the conservation issues. Remember President Theodore Roosevelt.
Other Comments by arogop
30. Comment #93831 by arogop on December 4, 2007 at 9:20 am
26. Comment #93697 by briancoughlanworldcitizen Yes, Wisconsin is the cheese state. Do you think that's a coincidence?
Why can't the Republican Party be the vehicle to bring about those changes? There is a governor in California that believes it too. Of course they also think they are the "new" cheese state. I am sensing a cheese conspiracy.
What you need to understand is that from our advantage point, we can provide many of the same outcomes, just more responsibly and at a realistic cost. All we need to do is to throw off the Fundys and send them back to the other side. Or better yet, educate them, so that they can join us too. If that makes me delusional, then so be it, and pass the cheese.
If we go with the premise that I love Capitalism and free markets, can anyone show me how those beliefs are better represented by the modern group of Democrats? Or is that not possible?
Make me see the light!
Other Comments by arogop
31. Comment #93846 by NormanDoering on December 4, 2007 at 10:01 am
arogop wrote:All we need to do is to throw off the Fundys and send them back to the other side. Or better yet, educate them, so that they can join us too. If that makes me delusional, then so be it, and pass the cheese.
If you think you can throw off the Fundies or educate them while continuing to vote a straight Republican ticket, then yes, you are delusional.
They have to start losing. Am I correct to assume you vote straight ticket Republican? You sound like you do (most people vote straight tickets). As long as you do then you're helping the fundies.
Your idea about voting in the Republican primaries isn't that bad -- but what choice do you really have? Ron Paul? He's not going to make it. All the other presidential candidates are pandering to the fundies. Even John McCain, and he can't pander enough to make up for the put downs he gave them when he ran against Bush.
You're right, there are a few good Republicans out there -- Arnold Schwarzenegger and others like him. And Schwarzenegger won in a Democratic state. But I think Schwarzenegger is stupid and a part of the problem by hanging on to his Republican identification just like you. He helps put a mask on a party that has been taken over by Christianists.
What makes you guys stupid is how blind you are to how deeply the Christianists have taken over your party. The fact that you think you can throw them out now proves you're delusional. You can't.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
32. Comment #93863 by arogop on December 4, 2007 at 10:54 am
Well you definitely stated engaging me in a constructive conversation. Now if we can get you to put down the insults, maybe we can accomplish something.As far as educating the fundies let me point out that this site is full of converted fundies. Very few people are born atheist and allowed to choose their own religion as I was.
I would also like to point out that the atheist message is not getting out. Wisconsin has one of the largest collections of biochemist in the world (due to the UW and the research parks) and yet it is not ok for them to embrace Atheism. We are also home to one of the most popular freedom from religion groups around. Yet, I know very little about them and have only heard bad things about them.
Lets face it. We (you and I) have a PR problem with this message that we are trying to get out. That why this OUT campaign I think needs to get kick into gear so that young minds do not shut out the idea that there is something else out there that makes sence. We need to make sure that people know there are resources out there when they have doubts, and they all have doubts from time to time. Your site does contribute to that. Of course you will pander to the other side and I will pander to my side. Then we can fight about things that really matter like "does it taste great or is it less filling".
Yes, I mostly vote straight ticket. In Wisconsin we do have a tradition to split tickets, but that usually is not me. I also have voted 100% of the time. No matter what is on the ballot. The primaries are my battle ground.
Yes, I was a little slow waking up to the threat of the Christian Wrong. Sorry, better late than never. Can I get absolution? Its just they never posed as much as a problem to my core beliefs than they are starting to do now… in progressive Wisconsin.
Of course I do remember getting kicked out of my Public High School for being Amoral and Unchristian. Funny huh?
It sounds like you are without hope. Do you need a hug? I still believe, and as long as I do there is still hope.
Other Comments by arogop
33. Comment #93866 by arogop on December 4, 2007 at 10:58 am
NormanDoering-I am leaning to Rudy this upcoming primaries. Can you point out someone on my side that better represents me? You should know enough about me by now.
Other Comments by arogop
34. Comment #93900 by NormanDoering on December 4, 2007 at 12:29 pm
arogop wrote:Well you definitely started engaging me in a constructive conversation. Now if we can get you to put down the insults, maybe we can accomplish something.
What insults? I inform you that you're stupid and you blame me for you being stupid? Listen, you're just going to have to learn to live with that liability. If you don't believe me then you need to have your brain tested against a chimp:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1949,Chimps-beat-humans-in-memory-test,BBC
The chimp will probably win.
As far as educating the fundies let me point out that this site is full of converted fundies.
But none of them were high ups in well paid political orgs. Money can keep one converted. Jesus pays if you're corrupt enough.
Very few people are born atheist...
We're all born atheists.
...and allowed to choose their own religion as I was.
You have a religion?
I would also like to point out that the atheist message is not getting out.
Oh, it's out there. It's just not sinking in.
Of course you will pander to the other side and I will pander to my side. Then we can fight about things that really matter like "does it taste great or is it less filling".
Yep. I sure can't join you in supporting Rudy 9/11 Giuliani's 9/11 candidacy 9/11.
But I'll give you this. Rudy probably would support embryonic stem cell research and he won't try to overturn Roe V. Wade. But I get that from almost every Democrat out there plus a rational take on the war.
Yes, I mostly vote straight ticket.
Well stop that!
And you voted for Bush twice, right?
Yes, I was a little slow waking up to the threat of the Christian Wrong.
Mark my words, you still are slow to waking up.
We all are.
One day we'll all find out to our horror that Pat Robertson is a CIA operative and they use religion for mind control.
I still believe, and as long as I do there is still hope.
That's so religious of you.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
35. Comment #93935 by STLstrike3 on December 4, 2007 at 1:27 pm
OK. I don't understand.One of the loudest arguments about why we can't tamper with embryonic stem cells is because it is a potential human life.
I realize the technology is decades and perhaps centuries off, but what if, *WHAT IF*, scientists are able to take a skin cell, reprogram it to revert to an original stem cell, and produce a viable embryo from that skin cell?
The good Sam Harris has already made this argument, but this scientific advance has brought us far closer to the reality of scratching one's nose and destroying "potential human life" en masse.
Why are the religious lauding this new procedure as any less "inhumane"?
Other Comments by STLstrike3
36. Comment #93948 by NormanDoering on December 4, 2007 at 1:35 pm
STLstrike3 asked:Why are the religious lauding this new procedure as any less "inhumane"?
You're asking the wrong people. Go to a Christian forum and ask them. Then come back here and report.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
37. Comment #94821 by drbreakfast on December 6, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I'm not sure whether this political tit-for-tat is constructive. Full disclosure: I'm a registered Democrat, though I think the Dems have sold their "souls" a long time ago. American politics today, thanks to the flawed "two party" system, has little to do with good governance or sound policy. I think we need to start from scratch on a number of levels.Nevertheless, while I generally agree with Norm's criticisms of the Republican party and share his bewilderment as to how, say a homosexual or a libertarian, can still call himself/herself a Republican, I don't think that attacking a forum member here on mere political affiliation is appropriate.
For example, I strongly with Christopher Hitchens on Iraq, but I don't think my criticisms of his views on Iraq are appropriate here, given the focus of this site. As Ed Tabash said at the AAI forum, atheism and reason should not be deemed "left wing." Arguably, the Dems are the more "reasonable" of the 2 parties and therefore less prone to engage in insane Christ-speak, but, given the uphill battle that we as atheists already have, maybe we should have a little less "in fighting."
Just my two cents.
Other Comments by drbreakfast
38. Comment #94840 by NormanDoering on December 6, 2007 at 6:56 pm
drbreakfast asked:I'm not sure whether this political tit-for-tat is constructive.
Was this admission worth it:
Yes, I was a little slow waking up to the threat of the Christian Wrong. Sorry, better late than never. Can I get absolution?
I'll give him absolution if he promises to take the science issue seriously and stop voting straight ticket Republican. Especially if it means getting someone like Huckabee. I'll forgive him for Rudy or Ron Paul or McCain. But we have to throw him out of the pro-science atheist club if he votes for Huckabee. And after Romney's speech today, probably him too.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
39. Comment #108855 by scooternyc on January 7, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Comment #93863 by arogop on December 4, 2007 at 10:54 am Part of the problem is that liberal democrats have hijacked the issue of atheism as though one must be of that party to support the idea of a secular society and as though it belongs to them alone.
As of recent at two very strongly attended events in Washington D. C. and another in New York, the overwhelming politicizing of the issue was so pathetic.
In the face of people requesting that we not attribute the issue to either party as it disenfranchises others who support the issue, fell on deaf ears.
Both parties pander to the religious; both are dangerous as a result.
You have to be some vegan loving, war hating, capitalist disdain-er, Bush hating, socialist to be on board this issue. Otherwise you're considered a Republican and worthy of no consideration.
Other Comments by scooternyc
40. Comment #108860 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Wrong, you are seeing the mirror image of what has actually happened. The American Republican party has been overtaken by the religious right...so Liberals and Democrats wrongly assume that Republicans and Conservatives have no interest in atheism as they are too busy trying to get school boards to teach ID and allow prayer in schools. Other Comments by Radesq
41. Comment #108863 by scooternyc on January 7, 2008 at 6:42 pm
No doubt that you are correct about the religious right being hijacked by the Republican party, but you are completely disingenuous in your denial of the reality that democrats will justify their vote for hillary, obama or ? who all pander to the christian vote. Either you're committed to the issue or you're not.
If you say that someone, anyone, who doesn't endorse religion is someone you would vote for, then it should be presumed that you would vote Republican if indeed such a person came forward.
No, you say?
Then it only reveals the political nature of the issue, not the issue itself which affects ALL AMERICANS and people EVERYWHERE on both sides of the aisle.
It's like playing the "faith" card - faith is something the religious need because they really don't have a solid commitment in their beliefs. If they did, they wouldn't need faith.
Other Comments by scooternyc
42. Comment #108867 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 6:47 pm
I suppose if you are a one issue voter, then yes if theism/atheism is your one issue then you would vote for an atheist candidate of another party. I am not a single issue voter, and there is no atheist candidate to vote for. Shall I just take my ball and go home? Should I not vote for the candidate least likely to appoint a fundamentalist to the Supreme Court? In a strictly binary world your point makes sense but it is not pragmatic or politically useful. Other Comments by Radesq
43. Comment #108876 by scooternyc on January 7, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Don't take the victim role, "shall I just take my ball and go home". Take the responsible role which is to understand that no candidate will lean on all sides you care about.
Using the god factor as a reason to hold disdain for a candidate when in fact you already have a fundamental issue with the majority of his/her views, is not genuine.
I agree, you should not be a one voter issue.
The point made is important to continue development of our society toward the intellectual and not the emotional. You're on the way, keep on truckin.
Other Comments by scooternyc
44. Comment #108879 by Radesq on January 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Now I understand what you are saying. However, as silly and counterintuitive as it may seem I think voters actually understand and accept that some candidates are simply paying lip service to theism and don't really believe what they are saying. So are these voters rewarding politicians for lying to them. Yes, in a way, or at least excusing them because they know that it is impossible to get elected President of the United States without mouthing certain words. Is this hypocritical, irresponsible, uncourageous? Absolutely, and entirely necessary. Other Comments by Radesq
45. Comment #108881 by NormanDoering on January 7, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Of course, both parties pander -- but only one party has a candidate who will say this:"When you give yourself to Christ, some relationships have to go. It's no longer your life; you've signed it over... When we become believers, it's as if we have signed up to be part of God's Army, to be soldiers for Christ... there is suffering in the conditioning for battle... you obey the orders."
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/01/fundamentalist-psyche.html
.
Other Comments by NormanDoering
46. Comment #108884 by scooternyc on January 7, 2008 at 7:28 pm
"So are these voters rewarding politicians for lying to them"Brilliant statement! : )
Other Comments by scooternyc
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #93192 by GBile on December 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm
I sympathize with the writer and share his frustration about this issue. We should not let these politicians, responsible for this mess, get away lightly. The voting booth should be the place to confront them.
Other Comments by GBile