Newest expert on evolution: Judge Roy Moore

Posted 24 March 2005 by Tara Smith

↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/03/newest-expert-o.html

Everyone’s favorite defender of the 10 Commandments, Roy Moore, has spoken out against evolution on MSNBC’s “Hardball.”

Partial transcript:

MATTHEWS: But when we create public schools that have to teach science…

MOORE: Sure.

MATTHEWS: Usually by high school level, teach biology, for example.

MOORE: Sure.

MATTHEWS: How do you teach Genesis as true biology, true science?

MOORE: I dont think you teach Genesis as the science. You teach the creationism.

MATTHEWS: Well, creationism. Well, isnt that—is that a scientific belief?

MOORE: That is a scientific belief in many opinions, yes.

MATTHEWS: Not opinions, but is it scientific belief? In other words, if you send someone to medical school, would you want them to study creationism as part of their biology testing and education?

MOORE: I would. I sure would.

MATTHEWS: You would want them to study creationism?

MOORE: Sure. Sure.

MATTHEWS: What value would that have in their training?

MOORE: Because theres no—theres no scientific evidence of evolution.

Evolution is a theory and has been recognized so by many. You have always heard of the missing link, havent you?

MATTHEWS: Right.

MOORE: It is still missing. In other words, they cant explain how male and female came and every species from one atom or one amoeba.

The Moore interview is the final one, about 3/4 of the way down the page, and part of NBC’s “Faith in America” series this week.

40 Comments

Mad Chemist · 24 March 2005

MATTHEWS: What value would [the teaching of creationism] have in their training? MOORE: Because there's no---there's no scientific evidence of evolution.

I guess he didn't want to say that creationism would have NO value in the training of someone who wants to be a medical doctor. Seriously, though, how would a creationist answer that question. What useful medical information does creationism provide that evolution doesn't?

tytlal · 24 March 2005

Quite frankly, I found the above comments by Judge Roy Moore to be very disturbing.

"That is a scientific belief in many opinions, yes." What?

Nice "dodge" when asked what value that would have in their training, in regards to studying creationism. Instead of answering the question, he states there is no SCIENTIFIC evidence for evolution.

Remember, that's JUDGE Roy Moore.

tristram · 24 March 2005

What a moron! And yet many people will bobble their heads in agreement and declare him a scholar. Seems like we're seeing an awful lot of wingnut politicians making pronouncements on scientific issues these days; very few of them have a clue as to what they're talking about. How many of those re-submitted Bush judges are equally foolish? What I find disturbing is that "Judge" Roy Moore is speaking from the same world-of-make-believe script as so many other extremists, but so many people don't seem to notice the dishonesty in that script.

Michael Finley · 24 March 2005

Moore is no longer on the bench, right?

Tara Smith · 24 March 2005

Moore is no longer on the bench, right?
— Michael Finley

AFAIK, no. They mentioned (either in the Hardball intro or elsewhere) that he's written a book on the controversy--guess that's his new career.

Bombthrower · 24 March 2005

The only court Judge Roy Moore belongs in is a trailer court.

Greg · 24 March 2005

A creationist approach to medical science would have to allow for supernatural causation. Certainly the Bible has several stories of people supernaturally healed or struck with blindness, Hansen's Disease, mental illness...even death. How could any progress be made toward treating health conditions in an out-of-the-blue, anything goes, supernatural causation environment?

Increased pain in childbirth was a curse from God, "justly" inflicted on women because of Eve's naughty taste of bootleg fruit. In a creationist gestalt, would it be wrong then to provide medication to ease the discomfort of labor? Would this go against God's stated will?

And because many afflictions in the time the New Testament was written were attributed to demons, should clinics and hospitals have an exorcist on staff, just in case the patient presents with possession rather than garden-variety schizophrenia?

We've all seen the Dobzhansky quote a million times: "Nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution." Since most medicine, including neuropsychological, is essentially part of biology, it would be disastrous to abandon or dilute evolution education in favor of anything smacking of supernatural causation.

There is one specific area in which religion--not pseudoscience, but religion--might have a place within the practice of medicine. There is evidence that people of faith may fare better recovering from, say, heart disease or other serious illnesses. Some people's emotional needs are met to a greater or lesser degree by their religion, and mood can influence healing. The art of medicine (not the science of it) should take this factor into account. But the science of medicine should remain ever free from the taint of supernatural causation.

Superstition had several centuries to provide evidence of effectiveness. It failed spectacularly. In a few centuries, science and reason have revolutionized life in the developed world. Retreating back into the darkness can only resurrect the ignorance we had rightly buried.

Michael Phillips · 24 March 2005

Guys, imagine the influence this man has. He is a respected former judge who represents the views of a LOT of people in the south, especially with regard to his view of the role of God and the 10 commandments in the U.S. Constitution. You may not share his opinions, but keep in mind a huge portion of the U.S. does.

I personally think it is dangerous when a judge or other respected figure makes such clear pronouncements in favor of a creationist interpretation of the world because it emboldens other creationists to cite his example and use it to promote creationist ideas in the science classroom. The more people there are like him, the more we move towards a government like Iran.

But who can stand up to this kind of creationist bullying when anyone who does puts his or her career in peril? Maybe it is time for all concerned American scientists to move to Europe.

Michael Finley · 24 March 2005

As long as he's not on the bench where he might hand down decisions that are reflections of his own personal policy preferences (as oppossed to strict interpretations of the law), who cares whether he advocates his own beliefs on Hardball?

Is there really a concern that someone will see him on t.v. and say to themselves "Well if Judge Moore believes X, then so do I." It seems to me that there are better things to discuss on PT.

Konrad Crist · 24 March 2005

I agree with Greg that creationist or ID science would have to allow for the possibility of supernatural explanations. At the same time I wonder how many lawyers or judges would allow similar supernatural explanations or causes in a court of law? Would defendents be able to appeal to the divine (either good or evil) as a cause for their actions ("The Devil made me do it.")? How would you separate law from science? I wonder if Philip Johnson or Judge Moore would see it that way?

Great White Wonder · 24 March 2005

M. Phillips --

But who can stand up to this kind of creationist bullying when anyone who does puts his or her career in peril?

Nobody puts there career in peril by standing up to Judge Moore. It's easy to put Judge Moore's feet in the fire and cook them to a crisp because he's a dimwit. You don't have to call him a dimwit. You just have to expose him for the ignorant self-promoting charlatan that he is. Moore's apologists will holler and hoot but guess what? The vast majority of Americans will see Moore for what he is: a faker and a self-promoter, trying to move a few of his books. M Finley --

Is there really a concern that someone will see him on t.v. and say to themselves "Well if Judge Moore believes X, then so do I." .

That's virtually guaranteed given the sort of people who watch cable programs like Hardball.

It seems to me that there are better things to discuss on PT

Personally I think PT is best used a sharp object to pop balloon-heads like Moore and the Discovery Institute charlatans. And the great thing about it is there's so many swelled-up targets ripe for poppin'.

Katarina · 24 March 2005

Increased pain in childbirth was a curse from God, "justly" inflicted on women because of Eve's naughty taste of bootleg fruit. In a creationist gestalt, would it be wrong then to provide medication to ease the discomfort of labor? Would this go against God's stated will?

Medication curbs the "discomfort," but not by that much. Anything beyond an epidural (which doesn't always work, or can wear off) drugs the newborn too. Believe me, childbirth is still a curse (outweighed by the immense joy, of course).

javabuddha · 24 March 2005

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a story about the quick about face by the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History concerning their refusal to show Volcanoes. They are now going to show it. Check out this passage:

Museum Director Van Romans, with the blessing of the board of directors, reversed the museum's decision and said the film will open in Fort Worth "before summer." The film is already being promoted on the museum's Web site.

"We're going to show things that have scientific credibility, and people can make their own decisions," Romans said Wednesday. "That's a very personal choice. But we are a science and history institution. We have a responsibility to the public to share with them."

Here's the URL: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/11218459.htm

The title of the story is "'Volcanoes' to be shown after outrage". Looks like a victory for science.

And it looks like they are going to have a follow up piece on this tomorrow:

COMING TOMORROW

• Top officials of the Museum of Science and History assure the public that the museum remains true to its mission. OPINIONS

Les Lane · 24 March 2005

"Rock for brains" is more suitable than I realized.

Flint · 24 March 2005

Roy Moore is much in the news here in Alabama, since he is considering running for Governor. Most observers think his chances of election range from excellent to certain. He is running (in the sense of getting the contributions and column inches) on a ten commandments platform, and his campaign speech asserts that church and state should not only not be separated, they should not even be different! He favors mandatory Christian prayer in the courts, the schools, and every government institution. He has not come out directly to say that one's religious belief should be considered both admissible and required in legal defendents, public servants, teachers, etc. but he's made this position clear to his followers.

Now, GWW can snicker all she wants about the ignorant yokels responsible for the unofficial Alabama state motto, "Thank God for Mississippi" (which prevents Alabama from finishing last in most quality of life measures). But real people live here. If anyone wants some idea of what those people are like, the latest issue of Smithsonian magazine does a story on Dayton, Tennessee. Which is a normal, typical example of views outside the Big City. Roy Moore's responses on "Hardball" has people dancing in the streets.

Dan S. · 24 March 2005

"Museum Director Van Romans, with the blessing of the board of directors, reversed the museum's decision and said the film will open in Fort Worth "before summer.""
Yay! One point for us! I hope.

Konrad - The supernatural court cases thing is discussed in "Tower of Babel," by Pennock, in regard to Johnson. Nifty book - wish I could remember where I put it.

Great White Wonder · 24 March 2005

Top officials of the Museum of Science and History assure the public that the museum remains true to its mission.

AWESOME. Flint:

Roy Moore's responses on "Hardball" has people dancing in the streets.

That's sad. By the way, I don't 'snicker' at fundamentalist-born impulses. I spit. And you can rest assured that Chris Matthews and many other TV "pundits" feel the same way I do, if not more strongly. Unfortunately, Chris Matthews is presently paid to express his true opinions only after he goes home to eat prime rib at his palace in Nantucket, alongside other fake "men of the people" like Lyin' Tim Russert. Are overpaid lazy script-reciters immune from criticism? Can they not be toppled or forced to conform their expression to vaguely match the indisputable facts? Of course they can. If the truth about creationist dishonesty and idiocy were as widely disseminated as Discovery Institute-peddled baloney about "academic elites," would public opinion be changed? Of course it would. Can the street-dancin' Alabamites be educated? Yes. Review the history of slavery and racism if you have any doubts about that.

Tara Smith · 24 March 2005

Is there really a concern that someone will see him on t.v. and say to themselves "Well if Judge Moore believes X, then so do I."
— Michael Finley

As mentioned, we haven't seen the last of Roy Moore. I doubt many people would accept his opinion on evolution simply because his say-so, but there are many people who already feel the way he does, and add him as one more "educated opinion*" that "evolution is false." *Because it doesn't matter whether he's educated in biology or not--as we know, a JD is equiavalent to a PhD in those "smart people who doubt evolution" lists.

It seems to me that there are better things to discuss on PT.
— Michael Finley

Like Darwin's posse? :)

Gary Hurd · 24 March 2005

Increased pain in childbirth was a curse from God, "justly" inflicted on women because of Eve's naughty taste of bootleg fruit. In a creationist gestalt, would it be wrong then to provide medication to ease the discomfort of labor? Would this go against God's stated will?

In fact, the indroduction of anesthesia in childbirth (as well as C-sections) was opposed by Christains who held that it was "unbiblical." The same sort of fool who objected to the use of Ben Franklin's lightening rods to prevent fires because lightening came from God. Lightening rods became popular when it was pointed out that Chruch steeples were the objects most often "targeted."

chrishack · 24 March 2005

"He favors mandatory Christian prayer in the courts, the schools, and every government institution. He has not come out directly to say that one's religious belief should be considered both admissible and required in legal defendents, public servants, teachers, etc. but he's made this position clear to his followers."
— Flint

Although Moore may not have come right out and said that he favors religious tests for public office, in court cases, etc., he has come pretty darn close. For example, he once made the comment that, "It's my responsibility to display the moral foundation of our nation. We're not a nation founded by Hindu [sic] or Buddha or Mohammed." (Source) He has also handed down rulings that contain Biblical quotations as practically his only justification for said rulings. I don't think people from outside Alabama who have not seen and heard about Moore's antics aside from the 10 Commandments fiasco truly understand what a lunatic this guy is and the kind of influence he could potentially gain in the near future. I mean, the monument in the courthouse got a lot of attention, but there are plenty of people who don't know about some of his even more outrageous actions, such as taking a woman's children away from her and giving them to their biological father (who had a record of abusing family members) because she was supposedly a lesbian and therefore and "abomination" before God (or some similar language). He basically told her that she was a sinner and a criminal who didn't deserve to raise children (again, for no other reason than the fact that she was supposedly a homosexual). (Source) He was also a leader of the recent (and successful) movement to vote down a resolution that would have removed a section from the Alabama Constitution which was inserted decades ago by segregationist Alabama legislators who were trying to keep African-American children out of predominately white public schools. If you ask me, the comment on Hardball is just the least among many examples of Moore's boundless stupidity. The man believes he is a prophet sent by God to take this country's government and turn it into a fundamentalist "Christian" version of the Taliban. Unbelievably, polls indicate that he is indeed in the lead for the next gubernatorial race here in AL. My dad (who is anything but liberal) and I were just talking about this last night, and we both said that if he becomes governor we are moving to another state. That would, in my case, require transferring to a different college, but if it weren't for that I'd be dead serious. The man is beyond stupid - his extreme popularity in this state makes him, in my opinion, dangerous. By the way, this is my first time posting a comment on PT, but I've been reading the blog for several months, and it is just great. Thanks to all the contributors for making this available.

Greg · 24 March 2005

Here's a little "creationist medicine" from the Hebrew Bible book of Leviticus, Chapter 14 (I wonder if my HMO will cover all of this):

"These are the regulations for the diseased person at the time of his ceremonial cleansing, when he is brought to the priest:
The priest is to go outside the camp and examine him. If the person has been healed of his infectious skin disease, the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the one to be cleansed.
Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water.
Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the infectious disease and pronounce him clean. Then he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
"The person to be cleansed must wash his clothes, shave off all his hair and bathe with water; then he will be ceremonially clean. After this he may come into the camp, but he must stay outside his tent for seven days.
On the seventh day he must shave off all his hair; he must shave his head, his beard, his eyebrows and the rest of his hair. He must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water, and he will be clean.
"On the eighth day he must bring two male lambs and one ewe lamb a year old, each without defect, along with three-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering, and one log of oil.
The priest who pronounces him clean shall present both the one to be cleansed and his offerings before the LORD at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
"Then the priest is to take one of the male lambs and offer it as a guilt offering, along with the log of oil; he shall wave them before the LORD as a wave offering.
He is to slaughter the lamb in the holy place where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. Like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest; it is most holy.
The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot.
The priest shall then take some of the log of oil, pour it in the palm of his own left hand, dip his right forefinger into the oil in his palm, and with his finger sprinkle some of it before the LORD seven times.
The priest is to put some of the oil remaining in his palm on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot, on top of the blood of the guilt offering.
The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for him before the LORD.
"Then the priest is to sacrifice the sin offering and make atonement for the one to be cleansed from his uncleanness. After that, the priest shall slaughter the burnt offering and offer it on the altar, together with the grain offering, and make atonement for him, and he will be clean.
"If, however, he is poor and cannot afford these, he must take one male lamb as a guilt offering to be waved to make atonement for him, together with a tenth of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering, a log of oil, and two doves or two young pigeons, which he can afford, one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering.
"On the eighth day he must bring them for his cleansing to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, before the LORD.
The priest is to take the lamb for the guilt offering, together with the log of oil, and wave them before the LORD as a wave offering. He shall slaughter the lamb for the guilt offering and take some of its blood and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot. The priest is to pour some of the oil into the palm of his own left hand, and with his right forefinger sprinkle some of the oil from his palm seven times before the LORD.
Some of the oil in his palm he is to put on the same places he put the blood of the guilt offering--on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot.
The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed, to make atonement for him before the LORD.
Then he shall sacrifice the doves or the young pigeons, which the person can afford, one as a sin offering and the other as a burnt offering, together with the grain offering. In this way the priest will make atonement before the LORD on behalf of the one to be cleansed." These are the regulations for anyone who has an infectious skin disease and who cannot afford the regular offerings for his cleansing.
-------------------------

I apologize that this went on for so long, but I didn't know how else to depict the full absurdity of what "creationist medicine" might have to offer.

386sx · 24 March 2005

Oh, don't worry Greg. You can get that stuff to be allegorical without twisting and bending any of it. But, I think, you have to be a really smart intellectual type in order to be able to do stuff like that. Frankly, I'm quite surprised you would want to offend any of the smarty pants Christianity types. They are the good guys, you know.

Keanus · 24 March 2005

I don't know that it'll do any good, but I strongly urge one and all to let Chris Mathews and MS/NBC know that giving Roy Moore a stage to blather his ignorance about biology merits at least equal time from a Ken Miller, PZ Myers, or some other articulate biologists. MS/NBC cannot be allowed to become a clone of Fox.

Russell · 24 March 2005

... who cares whether he advocates his own beliefs on Hardball?...It seems to me that there are better things to discuss on PT.
— Michael Finley

Really? What things would those be? It seems to me that this guy has a lot of influence over a regrettably sizable proportion of the population - and not just in Alabama! And since Michael Finley has never shown much interest in the actual scientific content of evolution, I ask again: what does he consider better fodder for discussion on PT?

Flint · 24 March 2005

GWW:

Can the street-dancin' Alabamites be educated? Yes. Review the history of slavery and racism if you have any doubts about that.

I don't understand your intent here. Do you think racism is gone, or do you think it is still rampant in Alabama. Hint: it's the latter. Do you think slavery would be voted up or down in Alabama if it were legalized? Hint: the former, overwhelmingly. Blacks, of course, would not be permitted to vote. Roy Moore is, as Chrishack and I wrote, overwhelmingly popular here. His rejection of evolution is guaranteed to peg the applause meter at any random public speech. And this is why Roy Moore is relevant here at PT. Alabama has about the worst public education system in the US (probably second to Mississippi, but for the same reasons), and terrible education is self-perpetuating. Alabamans don' need no steenkin' education to know the Truth: God is all, niggers is dirt, we wuz created 6000 years ago like the Bible tells us, and shut up while I educate you, so help me God!

randy · 24 March 2005

A creationist approach to medical science would have to allow for supernatural causation... Here's a little "creationist medicine" from the Hebrew Bible book of Leviticus, Chapter 14 (I wonder if my HMO will cover all of this)
— Greg

Does anybody remember Baby Faye, the "baby with the baboon heart." I'll have to search for a cite but I remember the surgeon being asked whether any human heart would have been a better match with regard to rejection than a baboon heart. The questioner reasoned that from an evolutionary perspective, someone from the most isolated place on earth was more closely related than a baboon. The good doctor replied that he didn't much believe in that evolution stuff. (Could this be something I'm recollecting from the sorely missed Dr. Gould?)

randy · 24 March 2005

Just to lighten the tone a little, here's an honest-to-God Federal District Court case from Eastern Pennsylvania. Gerald Mayo had petitioned the court asking leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

He allege[d] that Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused [his] downfall.

The court, doubting that it could obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant, ultimately denied leave. Poor fellow! There are several articles on the web about the pitfalls in suing deities and other supernatural beings; all most interesting.

RBH · 24 March 2005

I've heard that story, but I can't find what looks like even a passably reliable source linking the surgeon (Leonard Bailey at Loma Linda) to the quotation, so I'm a dab suspicious of it.

RBH

Great White Wonder · 24 March 2005

Flint

I don't understand your intent here. Do you think racism is gone, or do you think it is still rampant in Alabama.

Hey -- that's a fake dichotomite! ;) I think there's proportionally less racism in Alabama and everywhere else in the US than there used to be, say, 50 or 100 years ago. And it's because of education -- not necessarily science education, but education nonetheless. Alabama may have totally crap public schools but I bet the TV reception is not that much worse than in Wisconsin. And TV can teach. Just one more reason the fundamentalists want to castrate PBS.

Air Bear · 24 March 2005

Konrad Crist wrote:

I agree with Greg that creationist or ID science would have to allow for the possibility of supernatural explanations. At the same time I wonder how many lawyers or judges would allow similar supernatural explanations or causes in a court of law?

I understand that the law still refers to extreme weather phenomena and similar random disasters as "acts of God". Can any legal expert expand on the current usage and legal meaning of this phrase?

Stan Gosnell · 24 March 2005

The Texas public schools are little, if any, better than the schools in Alabama and Mississippi, especially since the reign of Dubya. And that is something that should concern everyone, because Texas, being as large, populous, and ignorant as it is determines the textbooks in the rest of the country. Textbook publishers publish what the Texas Board of Education approves, not just for Texas but for the rest of the country. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Pay attention to the antics of our board, because they greatly concern you. If creationism is in the Texas textbooks, it will be in every textbook in every state.

As for racism, it is alive, well, and flourishing, here and in the rest of the country. The north is marginally more enlightened, but all you have to do is watch a few shows on the Fox Entertainment Channel to see that most middle-aged white males are incredibly bigoted. I work with them every day. Only the overt indications of racism have diminished, not the underlying feelings.

Stan Gosnell · 24 March 2005

Mike Walker · 24 March 2005

In my wildest dreams "Judge" Roy Moore wins the Repulican nomination for president in 2008.... but then, I'm a little bit biased ;)

Michael I · 25 March 2005

On the whole, I'm guessing that the business wing of the GOP stops Roy Moore well before 2008. Probably in the primary (there's an incumbent GOP governor in Alabama).

What Ed Kilgore aptly terms the split "between the hard right and the crazy right" should provide some entertainment value. At least for those of us that don't live in Alabama.

FitzRoy · 25 March 2005

Air Bear wrote:

I understand that the law still refers to extreme weather phenomena and similar random disasters as "acts of God". Can any legal expert expand on the current usage and legal meaning of this phrase?

In modern legal usage, the expression "act of God" does not have any particular religious connotation. Undoubtedly, it did historically. Today, it usually refers to an unforseeable occurrence that may, depending on the circumstances, act to relieve a party of an obligation (or to defer the performance of an obligation). Whether or not the parties, or the court, believes there was ultimately a supernatural cause behind the event is irrelevant. For example, a ship owner might be relieved of a contractual obligation it otherwise has to deliver a shipload of goods to a particular port by a specified date because of a hurricane in the shipping lanes. Whether anyone believes God put the hurricane there is beside the point. Synonyms include "vis major," "force majeure," "irresistible force," and "fortuitous event." The Sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary contains the following definition: "Act of God. An act occasioned exclusively by forces of nature without the interference of any human agency. A misadventure or casualty is said to be caused by the 'act of God,' when it happens by the direct, immediate, and exclusive operation of the forces of nature, uncontrolled and uninfluenced by the power of man, and without human intervention, and is of such a character that it could not have been prevented or escaped from by any amount of foresight or prudence, or by any reasonable degree of care or diligence, or by the aid of any appliances which the situation of the party might reasonably require him to use. Any accident produced by any physical cause which is irresistible, such as lightning, tempests, perils of the sea, tornados, earthquakes." In other words, this is a term of art legally, and really has very little to do with the saga of Judge Moore.

Russell · 25 March 2005

...all you have to do is watch a few shows on the Fox Entertainment Channel to see that most middle-aged white males are incredibly bigoted

Hold on there! While I don't doubt that ignorance and racism is more rampant than I'd like, I refuse to believe that Fox Entertainment Channel reflects the thinking of most middle-aged white males.

Henry J · 25 March 2005

Re "At least for those of us that don't live in Alabama."
Or those of us who have a brother who lives there?

Stan Gosnell · 25 March 2005

Refusing to believe that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west does nothing to change the reality. You can refuse to believe it at your peril, but IME it's pervasive and persistent in the group I mentioned, and to which I am a member. Certainly not all of us believe in the deity of FNC, but I'm afraid the majority do.

Great White Wonder · 25 March 2005

Let there be no doubt that the anti-science fundamentalist types deserve to be tarred with the broadest brush possible: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/03/25.html

FOX News went so far as to have on John Edward from Crossing Over as a guest; (as if he is a soul expert.) The non-stop Schiavo coverage denegrated to the ludicrous, and The Daily Show captures their fallacies while remaining nuetral on the actual case. Stewart manages to bring humor to a humorless situation.

Some funny vids of the Daily Show at the link if you're interested.

moioci · 28 March 2005

The only silver lining to a Moore governorship here in Amabala would be the likelihood of his using it as a platform to stage a third-party presidential run in '08. This seems an actual possibility (to me)because some of the fundamentalist base are none too pleased with GWB. Such a run could threaten to split the right far more deeply than Nader ever split the left.

I'd be glad to contribute to his campaign, obviously.