The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Creationism reappears in Texas

Posted 25 September 2016 by Matt Young

Of course, it never really disappeared, as Michael Zimmerman notes in an article in the Huffington Post this past week. I will not go into detail, but according to Professor Zimmerman, a committee of the Texas State Board of Education had voted 6-2 to remove four standards that had been added in 2009, more or less at the last minute. Suffice it to say that the standards had been supported by Don McLeroy when he was chairman of the SBOE, and the two dissenting votes were by the creationists who, Professor Zimmerman says, were "added" to the current committee. Now, things get nasty. The committee is not scheduled to present its recommendations to the full Board until November. Nevertheless, Ray Bohlin, one of the two dissenting committee members and vice-president of something known as Probe Ministries, attacked the committee's recommendation at a recent Board meeting. No one else from the committee had attended the Board meeting, so the Board received an unscheduled and "one-sided perspective on the four anti-science, politically driven standards." Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, wrote to the SBOE (as quoted by Professor Zimmerman), complaining that "a number of state board members seemed willing to call into question [the committee's] objectivity and professionalism based on hearsay from one individual.... Some board members even suggested that the panelists somehow want to prevent students from asking questions." It is distressing, then, that Mr. Bohlin in effect went over the head of the committee and directly to the board, and, perhaps more importantly, that some of the Board were sympathetic to his position. Though Don McLeroy lost his position as chairman of the SBOE, I am afraid Texas and we are by no means done with creationist attacks on the schools.

82 Comments

Just Bob · 25 September 2016

Here in Texas, in many ways, the inmates run the asylum.

Henry J · 25 September 2016

In that case, one might say that Houston has a problem?

Oh, and the rest of the state, too.

DS · 26 September 2016

This is not surprising. This is what creationists always do. They lie, they cheat, they steal and they never stop. If they are caught in a lie they simply repeat it. If they are thrown off the board, they find a way to sneak back on. They are so sure of their moral superiority that they are willing to break every commandment in order to force everyone else to obey the antiquated laws that they themselves have broken. They are hypocrisy personified. If they are not made to pay for their nefarious behavior they will destroy education in this country, which is of course their ultimate goal. They are nothing but terrorists, fundamentalist extremists who are willing to sacrifice decent society due to their own hatred and insecurity. They are intellectually marginalized and unable to compete in the era of modern science, so they must resort to subterfuge and deception in order to promote their indefensible agenda. When are we going to say enough is enough already?

harold · 26 September 2016

The other thing that isn't surprising is the likely association between Trump poll numbers and emboldening of creationists.

The decision was made on high that, whatever it took, Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee. The decision was made that any chance for a "2016 Barrack Obama" to emerge was going to be blocked. "Pledged Super-delegates", billionaire funded "war chests", and declarations of her "inevitability" by "serious" TeeVee talkin' "pundits", and most likely some other less savory tactics, were put into play. (At the same time, an exact parallel process for Jeb Bush was initiated, but with a different disastrous result.)

The idea that starting with a candidate who had to be forced artificially through your own party's primary process, might be a bad preparation for the general election, was not even entertained. The fact that Obama won against two strong candidates, so maybe that 2008 primary outcome was for the best, was an anathema. It was Hillary Clinton's "turn". She had been "waiting for this". The primary was assumed to be the sole issue. It was simply taken for granted that there weren't enough "deplorables" to prevent a cake walk victory once the nomination was secured. There was, apparently, assumed to be no reason to even campaign. Just let Trump campaign unopposed. "Fund raising" was misunderstood to be a Dadaistic activity; funds weren't perceived as being valuable for deployment in campaigning. Rather, fund raising was perceived as independently valuable. Candidate losing the election? No problem, she's "fund raising" brilliantly. She'll have a "war chest" busting at the seams on Trump's inauguration day.

Let us pray that, like a 1904 marathon runner getting a sublethal dose of strychnine to help them totter across the finish line, the Clinton "campaign" comes up with something, anything, to keep Trump out of the White House.

I pray I don't wake up to "Trump Dominates Debate, Soars in Polls" tomorrow. But is there anything to hear my prayers?

https://me.yahoo.com/a/JxVN0eQFqtmgoY7wC1cZM44ET_iAanxHQmLgYgX_Zhn8#57cad · 26 September 2016

Someone still has to stand up to the experts.

And there's not much less expert than a creationist "explaining" origins.

Glen Davidson

Joe Felsenstein · 26 September 2016

If Trump won and started appointing more reactionary supreme court justices, then creationists would start winning in the courts. It's been pointed out that this would shift the fight to more local levels, including students having to discover that they are being fed misleading arguments that have been inserted into their educational process by political pressure from the Religious Right.

In the long run the Religious Right would lose out, as they are doing in polls of the U.S. population and even in church attendance figures. I would expect that they would not be content to let themselves lose, but would also try to pass laws at state and federal levels that would mandate that schools teach their materials, not just allow schools to teach them.

Pierce R. Butler · 26 September 2016

DS said:
They are nothing but terrorists, fundamentalist extremists who are willing to sacrifice decent society due to their own hatred and insecurity.
Aw c'mon. Most creationists are Sunday-school types, ready to say (almost) anything for their cause, but hardly any actually go further than that.

tomh · 26 September 2016

harold said: The decision was made on high that, whatever it took, Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee.
Actually, Clinton is the nominee because she got 15 million primary votes to her opponent's 12 million votes. This whole conspiracy bullshit is just that.

harold · 26 September 2016

tomh said:
harold said: The decision was made on high that, whatever it took, Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee.
Actually, Clinton is the nominee because she got 15 million primary votes to her opponent's 12 million votes. This whole conspiracy bullshit is just that.
Once the primary was down to Sanders and Clinton, the surprise was that Sanders came very close. There was no "conspiracy" during the actual primary. I complain about the judgment of those who, at least after June 2015 when it became clear that the only data available, the polls, showed Sanders to be a much stronger candidate, yet voted for Clinton. I would have voted for Sanders even if I worshipped Clinton, because I saw abundant evidence that she carried - and it's irrelevant whether it's "fair" - strong negatives. And unlike, say, Barrack Obama, who gets attacked far more than Clinton yet remains viable, the negatives seemed to stick. We can't know if the positive polls would have held for Sanders but we can certainly say that the polls predicted Clinton's results extremely well. Sanders probably didn't expect to do as well as he did. In retrospect, if he had more perfectly assessed the situation, he could have declared earlier, had a stronger presence in SC, etc. But overall he certainly came close to helping prevent the "Trump tied with the Democrat in late September" situation that we now find ourselves in. But why was Sanders the only primary opponent for a weak candidate? I didn't use the terminology "conspiracy", because I'm not talking about a secret conspiracy. I'm talking about easily observed deliberate bias in the primary system. Again, I love Sanders, but the real question is, why was Sanders the only opponent? So which part of what I actually described do you not agree with?
The decision was made that any chance for a “2016 Barrack Obama” to emerge was going to be blocked. “Pledged Super-delegates”, billionaire funded “war chests”, and declarations of her “inevitability” by “serious” TeeVee talkin’ “pundits”, and most likely some other less savory tactics, were put into play. (At the same time, an exact parallel process for Jeb Bush was initiated, but with a different disastrous result.)
You know what the big difference for Jeb was? The Republicans don't have "super delegates"! Do you deny any of this? Do you say that "super delegates" weren't declared at an absurd date to be "pledged" to Hillary Clinton? Do you say that helpful "pundits" didn't scornfully declare her to be the "only possible" nominee well in advance? Do you deny massive funding of the Clinton primary campaign by wealthy donors? All of this is perfectly legal. The "super delegates" part is the most distasteful. Pundits can say what they want and billionaires can donate to what they want. I wish all three groups, and those documented in public records to have influenced them, for example DNC officials, had used better judgment. A terrible, terrible mistake was made. A creationist style mistake. An irrefutable ideological pre-supposition was formulated - "Hillary is the 'best possible candidate' and all we have to do is block any decent primary challenge and she'll 'waltz' to victory in the general". Evidence was ignored, or greeted with the unjustified rage that comes from cognitive dissonance. She's got "name recognition". Hey, so does Charles Manson. It's weird that when it comes to the science of statistical sampling, it's the Democrats who are the science deniers. Republicans may deny evolution, but they usually respect polling data. Except Romney, and look how that worked out. A terrible mistake was made. Not a dastardly "conspiracy", just an arrogant, clueless, group-think decision to use perfectly legal but stupid means to thumb the scales for a predictably weak candidate, in a crucial year. "The establishment" assumed that Clinton was the "obvious" choice. They also assumed that Jeb Bush was the obvious choice for the other party. Hey, I'm voting for Clinton, and doing it on the first day of early voting in my state, too. I'm in favor of voting for Clinton - Clinton instead of Trump that is. I pray that she wins. I'm not in favor of choosing demonstrably weak candidates as the only bulwark against dangerous candidates. Hell, yes, I told you so. Next time let's give the situation time to develop, look at the data more carefully, and make a more informed decision. Clinton either got very lucky or very unlucky that the Republicans selected Trump. Lucky, in the sense that if they had dusted off Bob Dole and Jack Kemp and run them right now, as they are right now, those guys would probably be 25 points ahead of Clinton. Trump is, fortunately for her, another bad candidate. But she'll be very unlucky if she goes down in history as the person who let Trump into the White House.

John Harshman · 26 September 2016

One may suspect that Harold is a diehard Sandernista.

harold · 26 September 2016

John Harshman said: One may suspect that Harold is a diehard Sandernista.
That suspicion would be correct (of course, I'm voting for the candidate Sanders endorsed, which is Clinton), but ironically, now, my complaint is not with Clinton's policy proposals. My complaint right now is that the Clinton campaign isn't doing a good enough job against Trump.

John Harshman · 26 September 2016

harold said: My complaint right now is that the Clinton campaign isn't doing a good enough job against Trump.
Is right now, right here, the proper place to be making this complaint? Perhaps a focus on creationism, particularly in Texas, would be better.

harold · 26 September 2016

John Harshman said:
harold said: My complaint right now is that the Clinton campaign isn't doing a good enough job against Trump.
Is right now, right here, the proper place to be making this complaint? Perhaps a focus on creationism, particularly in Texas, would be better.
My focus actually is on creationism in Texas (although I will probably stop talking about the campaign now). The Republican party panders to science denial, including creationism. They pass laws and appoint jurists when in power. I agree with Joe Felsenstein that efforts to force court-ordered creationist beliefs will fail. However, a more devious type of effort would be merely to censor science they don't like from schools in areas where they have a lot of control. Trump may not be a creationist, but is unlikely to be a defender of sound science. Mike Pence, who has referred to himself as being Trump's Dick Cheney, almost certainly is. Trump in power and appointing federal and supreme court judges would be a gift for Texas creationists. Part of keeping Republicans from doing damage, for the time being, is both building a sane supreme court, and meeting them with strong, popular candidates (far easier now than twenty-five years ago, as younger voters who weren't eligible to vote then are mainly strongly opposed to science denial). Going forward in this discussion I'll probably focus more on the micro issue of direct machinations by individual Texas creationists, unless compelled otherwise. But the background matters.

Michael Fugate · 26 September 2016

RAYMOND G. BOHLIN, PH.D.

Vice President of Vision Outreach
Suite 2000
2001 W. Plano Parkway
Plano, TX 75075
Phone: (972) 941-4562
E-mail:rbohlin@probe.org
Probe Web Site: www.probe.org

Raymond G. Bohlin is Vice President of Vision Outreach with Probe Ministries. Dr. Bohlin was born and raised in Chicago, IL and is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology, 1971-1975), the University of North Texas (M.S., population genetics, 1977-1980), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular and cell biology, 1984-1991). He has been with Probe Ministries since 1975 and has lectured and debated on dozens of college and university campuses. He has addressed issues in the creation/evolution debate as well as other science-related issues such as the environment, genetic engineering, medical ethics, and sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Bohlin was named a Research Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture in 1997, 2000 and 2012. He and his wife Sue, an associate speaker and Webmistress for Probe Ministries as well as a professional calligrapher and Christian speaker, live in Plano, Texas, a suburb of Dallas, and they have two grown sons.

His PhD dissertation: Complementation of a defect in complex I of the mammalian electron transport chain by DNA-mediated gene transfer. Bohlin, Raymond Gene. The University of Texas at Dallas, 1991.

His MS dissertation:GENIC DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN TWO CHROMOSOMAL RACES OF POCKET GOPHERS, GEOMYS BURSARIUS. BOHLIN, RAYMOND GENE. University of North Texas, 1980. 1314959.

Michael Fugate · 26 September 2016

Not to mention Bohlin's views on creationism - can one say full-blown conservative who tries to portray himself as unbiased?
POSITION STATEMENT ON CREATION/EVOLUTION 1. That God is Creator is clearly taught in Scripture: Genesis 1 and 2, Job 38-41, Psalm 104, Romans 1:18-20, and Col. 1:16,17. The suggestion that life and man are the result of chance is incompatible with the biblical concept of intelligent creative activity. Theistic evolution is not a viable option in my opinion. 2. The data from astrophysics, astronomy, and mathematics do not support the concept of an eternal universe with no beginning. Something, indeed, has always existed, but it is not matter and energy. There is a definite requirement for a transcendent energizing existence which is outside the material universe. 3. The data from geology, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology do not support the theory that life arose from non-life by some process of chemical evolution. There is a definite requirement for intelligence in organizing and ordering living systems. 4. The data from paleontology, genetics, ecology, and molecular biology do not support the theory of descent with modification from single-celled organisms to man. The elements of intelligent design in nature point to a Supreme Designer that possesses a sense of beauty, form, function, and even humor. Though organisms do change over time, there appears to be genetically built-in limits to the amount and type of biological change that is possible. 5. The plain language of Genesis 1 seems to teach a recent literal six-day creation. There is much data from science, however, that indicates the universe and earth are billions of years old. I do not believe that certainty regarding the age of the earth is either necessary or possible at this time. Tension in areas of conflict between science and biblical interpretation should not necessarily be viewed as either questioning the inerrancy of scripture or a lack of faith. This issue should not be the focus of the creation/evolution debate at this time. 6. The plain language of Genesis 6-8 teaches a violent universal flood which would be expected to leave discernible scars on the earth. However, it is difficult to assimilate all geological formations into a model of a single worldwide flood only 5,000 years ago. There is also a significant amount of geological data that is not easily explained by uniformitarian principles. Research of a water canopy/universal flood model should be vigorously pursued, but belief in such should not be made a litmus test of true Christian belief.

TomS · 26 September 2016

I wonder when rejecting evolution from a single cell to "man", silence on less comprehensive evolution means no rejection of common descent of primates, mammals, or even tetrapods.

I assume that there is no tension between the "plain language" of Scripture and heliocentrism.

harold · 26 September 2016

TomS said: I wonder when rejecting evolution from a single cell to "man", silence on less comprehensive evolution means no rejection of common descent of primates, mammals, or even tetrapods. I assume that there is no tension between the "plain language" of Scripture and heliocentrism.
Yep (referring to the position statement provided by Michael Fugate above), it's very ID-strategy. Plain words of the scripture become weasel words when you want to pretend not to deny basic physics. Note, however, as always, that it is dissembling lies.
The plain language of Genesis 1 seems to teach a recent literal six-day creation. There is much data from science, however, that indicates the universe and earth are billions of years old. I do not believe that certainty regarding the age of the earth is either necessary or possible at this time.
Actually, of course, we can be exceptionally certain to a fairly high degree of accuracy of the Earth, and it is something between 4 and 5 billion years. "I can't be sure if the sky is blue or green" is not a reasonable concession that the sky is blue, it is deeply dishonest pandering to the idea that it may be green, with an attempt to disguise.
However, it is difficult to assimilate all geological formations into a model of a single worldwide flood only 5,000 years ago. There is also a significant amount of geological data that is not easily explained by uniformitarian principles.
In fact, if by "uniformitarian principle" he means geophysics of circa 1830, that may be true but is irrelevant. If he means current geophysics, it's both false, and probably inaccurate to refer to it as "uniformitarian". Again, a writhing weasel's attempt to "not deny YEC while falsely appearing to be reasonable".

tomh · 26 September 2016

harold said: So which part of what I actually described do you not agree with?
Pretty much everything you wrote. Especially this, "A terrible, terrible mistake was made." No mistake was made. Sanders would have been a disaster.

eric · 26 September 2016

TomS said: I wonder when rejecting evolution from a single cell to "man", silence on less comprehensive evolution means no rejection of common descent of primates, mammals, or even tetrapods.
Its an interesting question. On the one hand, you'd think for internal consistency that any literalist would say no, they can't have evolved either. Genesis 1 and 2 apply equally literally to both humans and animals, it can't be the case that it's literal for humans but non-literal for animals. OTOH, your mention of heliocentrism shows that even most literalists are able to adopt some non-literal cafeteria-style beliefs when they don't think the science threatens their theology. My guess is that if phylogeny and genetics had both consistently showed humans to be very different from every other beast on the planet, both fundies and mainstream Christians would accept this as supporting their religion, and the fundies would've just ignored any apparent inconsistency between the evolution of animals and the 6-day creation story. We'd be happily teaching evolution of everything else in HS biology classes, and there'd be no political creationism movement. After all, they accept a form of hyper-evolution after Noah's ark. And they accept that dinosaurs existed. So they don't seem to have a problem with species distribution varying over time. Its really the implications for humanity that really gets them.

DS · 26 September 2016

POSITION STATEMENT ON CREATION/EVOLUTION 1. That God is Creator is clearly taught in Scripture: Genesis 1 and 2, Job 38-41, Psalm 104, Romans 1:18-20, and Col. 1:16,17. The suggestion that life and man are the result of chance is incompatible with the biblical concept of intelligent creative activity. Theistic evolution is not a viable option in my opinion. 2. The data from astrophysics, astronomy, and mathematics do not support the concept of an eternal universe with no beginning. Something, indeed, has always existed, but it is not matter and energy. There is a definite requirement for a transcendent energizing existence which is outside the material universe. 3. The data from geology, chemistry, biochemistry, and molecular biology do not support the theory that life arose from non-life by some process of chemical evolution. There is a definite requirement for intelligence in organizing and ordering living systems. 4. The data from paleontology, genetics, ecology, and molecular biology do not support the theory of descent with modification from single-celled organisms to man. The elements of intelligent design in nature point to a Supreme Designer that possesses a sense of beauty, form, function, and even humor. Though organisms do change over time, there appears to be genetically built-in limits to the amount and type of biological change that is possible. 5. The plain language of Genesis 1 seems to teach a recent literal six-day creation. There is much data from science, however, that indicates the universe and earth are billions of years old. I do not believe that certainty regarding the age of the earth is either necessary or possible at this time. Tension in areas of conflict between science and biblical interpretation should not necessarily be viewed as either questioning the inerrancy of scripture or a lack of faith. This issue should not be the focus of the creation/evolution debate at this time. 6. The plain language of Genesis 6-8 teaches a violent universal flood which would be expected to leave discernible scars on the earth. However, it is difficult to assimilate all geological formations into a model of a single worldwide flood only 5,000 years ago. There is also a significant amount of geological data that is not easily explained by uniformitarian principles. Research of a water canopy/universal flood model should be vigorously pursued, but belief in such should not be made a litmus test of true Christian belief.
First, who is this guy to disregard the conclusions of all of the experts in all of these fields and just assume that his conclusions are the only valid ones? Who made him the king of science? Second, you either accept the findings of science or you don't Trying to weasel out of it just because science hasn't got the answer to enough decimal places for you is just plain dishonest. And applying a double standard to what science to accept and what to reject based on nothing more than your preconceptions is hypocritical in the extreme. Third, who is this guy to determine what is and what is not a "litmus test for true christian belief" And why is the test only contingent on the parts of science you have decided to agree with? What exactly is the "litmus" test if not the magic flood? Is it the six days of creation. Is it the six thousand year old earth? Or is it what the bible says, regardless of what some pseudo scientist claims? How did this pseudo scientist ever get on the board of education? Who voted for this guy? Why does he get to undermine science in Texas to advance his own religious agenda? How can we make him see the error of his ways and pay the price for his destructive behavior? Why should he be allowed to just walk away after he has failed, as he most assuredly will?

Michael Fugate · 26 September 2016

It is pretty clear from the Probe Ministry site that Bohlin has always been a very conservative Christian - he graduated from UI in 1975 and immediately went to work for Probe. He was working there while earning a MS and PhD. His position statement indicates that he knows that YEC is wrong, but doesn't have the will to publicly admit such. Does he need a job that badly? He also has rants against the usual right-wing bugbears - abortion, marriage equality, etc.

harold · 27 September 2016

tomh said:
harold said: So which part of what I actually described do you not agree with?
Pretty much everything you wrote.
Well, most some of what I wrote was pure, objective fact - "super delegates" announced that they were "pledged", Sanders performed better in polls, etc.
Especially this, "A terrible, terrible mistake was made." No mistake was made. Sanders would have been a disaster.
Here's the thing. I don't know how Sanders would have done. Based on the data - polls and his performance - I think he would have done well. But I don't know. I can't know. You think you "know". You can't possibly know that. My guess is supported by the only data we have. Your "knowledge" is contrary to the data. We all do this sometimes, but it's good discipline to admit it once in a while. I'm not anti-Clinton. I'm anti-Trump, pro-Sanders, and I'd much rather have Clinton than Trump. I'm pro-Clinton-rather-than-someone-worse-than-Clinton. I'll be voting for Clinton on the first day of early voting in my state. There's no point in us fighting a lot right now. We're largely on the same side. I actually don't know that you voted for Clinton in the primary, for that matter. I voted in the Democratic primary. The lines were very short. If you did, I think it would have been better to vote for the candidate who did better in polls of the general electorate. I think that fact that Trump has come so close is strong evidence of that. I don't think the "Bernie polled better against Trump, polls said Clinton might have a hard time with Trump, now Clinton is having a hard time with Trump, but for some mysterious reason if Bernie, who polled better against Trump, was here, he'd do even worse than Clinton, who polled poorly against Trump" rationalization is very good. But it doesn't matter now. See you at the next primary. And the one after that. And the one after that. I am the "Democratic base". I've contributed since Clinton/Gore and volunteered for the Kerry campaign (naturally I voted for Kucinich in the primary first). It wasn't 3% for Sanders, though, it was 43%. And as I write this, a bunch more of us just turned 18. We'll be there next time. And the time after that. And the time after that. But right now we're both strongly hoping for the same outcome and probably share a vast number of common progressive values, so I'll stop arguing.

harold · 27 September 2016

His position statement indicates that he knows that YEC is wrong, but doesn’t have the will to publicly admit such
Or alternately, he thinks it's right (at least in the sense of wishing it to be imposed as official dogma). But he knows that if he admits that he thinks it's right, his efforts to screw up the teaching of evolution will be compromised. So he goes for "war on one front at a time". Get rid of evolution first, then a few years after that, pull out the "moon dust proves a young universe" stuff. It's impossible to tell. But at least we can agree that he's a weasel.

Henry J · 27 September 2016

Thou shalt not insult weasels!

Joe Felsenstein · 27 September 2016

Theythinks he is like a weasel?

John Harshman · 27 September 2016

harold said: I think it would have been better to vote for the candidate who did better in polls of the general electorate.
Seems to me it would have been better to vote for the candidate you thought would make a better President.

W. H. Heydt · 27 September 2016

John Harshman said:
harold said: I think it would have been better to vote for the candidate who did better in polls of the general electorate.
Seems to me it would have been better to vote for the candidate you thought would make a better President.
While that's a pretty good point, there is also this. Do you vote for the candidate that you think has better plans and policy proposals or the candidate that is acceptable and you think can beat the candidate that you think would be an utter and complete disaster, and whom you absolutely despise? My other issue with Sanders is that, while I liked a number of his ideas, I don't think he'd've had a snowballs chance in Hell of getting his programs through Congress, even if the Democrats took control of both Houses. Thus, I think Clinton is more likely to be an *effective* President than Sanders would be. Sanders can stay in the Senate and submit bills to try to implement the ideas he was running on, after all.

harold · 28 September 2016

W. H. Heydt said:
John Harshman said:
harold said: I think it would have been better to vote for the candidate who did better in polls of the general electorate.
Seems to me it would have been better to vote for the candidate you thought would make a better President.
While that's a pretty good point, there is also this. Do you vote for the candidate that you think has better plans and policy proposals or the candidate that is acceptable and you think can beat the candidate that you think would be an utter and complete disaster, and whom you absolutely despise? My other issue with Sanders is that, while I liked a number of his ideas, I don't think he'd've had a snowballs chance in Hell of getting his programs through Congress, even if the Democrats took control of both Houses. Thus, I think Clinton is more likely to be an *effective* President than Sanders would be. Sanders can stay in the Senate and submit bills to try to implement the ideas he was running on, after all.
This is an interesting discussion of political strategy that could be relevant to future elections, and is definitely relevant to the topic of creationism in Texas (as there can be no doubt that the election of Republicans who pander to science denial, whether at the most trivial local level or to the presidency, causes creationism outbreaks that result in fruitless but harmful and expensive lawsuits). I thought both Sanders and Clinton were decent presidential candidates, and still do. I liked Sanders' policy ideas better. Logically, that can only be good. If he gets zero of his ideas that I like better than Clinton's ideas on the same topic enacted, I'm no worse off, and if he gets one idea that I like better than Clinton's idea on the same topic enacted, I'm better off. Clinton's primary supporters sometimes contrive "excess recoil" rationales; e.g. "by proposing an even more generous affordable education proposal, Sanders will cause congress to backlash and act even more strongly against affordable education". The "Since you asked for more gruel you'll get no gruel at all tomorrow!" rationale, so to speak. This isn't logical, because it's at least equally likely to the be the opposite - by strongly supporting an issue, the president may be more likely to move things in that direction, than by weakly supporting it. Another thing may be the "we tried this in the past and failed" thought. But that's true of votes for women, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a variety of other good legislative efforts. If the polls tell you that an idea can win now, maybe it can win now. I saw no generic reason why Sanders would be a less effective president. Arguments that president "needs to have been secretary of state first" would be absurd, as almost no president has. Sanders has abundant experience as an elected representative at the highest national level. I voted for Kucinich despite having doubts about his ability to run a general election campaign, but that was because I knew he wouldn't win the primary anyway, and was neutral on the other candidates, one of whom I knew would win, so I just went with issues. I later volunteered for Kerry. If I had thought that Sanders was one, a weaker general candidate, and two, a threat to win the primary and thus lose the election, I would not have voted for him. As it happens, though, the polls and public appearance performances told me the opposite - it was Clinton who was that combination - likely to win the primary and at risk to stumble in the general. I get that attacks on Clinton usually aren't fair. I get that America is mean to her sometimes. But the polls ARE the ONLY data. And the more extreme the difference the more likely it is to remain relevant. Sanders did a lot better against Republicans in polls. My "terrible, terrible mistake" language applies only if Trump beats Clinton, but might have hypothetically been beaten by Sanders or a third Democrat, as my issue with the Democrats is not just at the "Clinton/Sanders" level but more so at the "legally and transparently but stupidly gaming the primary process to force Clinton as the nominee" level. And the super delegate situation alone was that. If Trump loses, the Clinton nomination will be, in my opinion, merely a fumble that temporarily allowed an underdog opponent to tie the score. Clinton is fine, but fairly or unfairly has high negatives with the general electorate, struggles with public speaking (by her own admission as well as my observation), and ironically, is second only to Trump in a tendency to fire off insults from hip that, although we may agree with them, antagonize groups of voters. When did you EVER hear Barrack Obama attack groups of voters? He's attacked by racists 24/7/365, but he's never strategically foolish enough to say "anyone who tells a pollster they might not vote against me is probably a deplorable racist". Don't insult any potential customers. It's an election not a purity contest. If some deplorables vote for the less deplorable candidate that's good. Don't fight that. Attack your opponent's policies, not his voters. Barrack Obama got a higher percentage of the white vote in West Virginian than nationally, and about the same percentage as nationally in Kentucky, and did better than one would predict in Tennessee, too. That did not hurt. That forced some diversion of res So those were good reasons to evaluate Clinton against other potential candidates rather than bothering to do things like get "super delegates" "pledged" for her in advance, and so on. Of course Clinton is a potentially decent president, massively better than Trump, and I strongly support her, relative to the alternative of Trump.

W. H. Heydt · 28 September 2016

(I'm not going to quote harold, but this is in response to him.)

I agree with many of your points. At this point, I will vote for Clinton even though I'm not exactly thrilled by her but because Trump is simply beyond the pale--far worse than your typical god-bother, shut the government down, theocratic, "dog whistle" racist candidates the Republican party keeps coughing up. If I have any Republican sympathies, it would be more along the lines of a (Nelson) Rockefeller Republican (even though he--personally--tried (and failed) to get his father to fire my great-uncle).

I'm not even thinking about a recoil effect with respect to Sanders. It's more of an indication that he expressed too much "my way or the highway" in his policy statements. If that tended to set my teeth on edge (even when I *agreed* with the policy idea), I can only imagine how anyone he was trying to get to pass the enabling legislation would react. He also--and unfortunately somewhat like Trump--seemed to have a tenuous grasp on just what the limits of Presidential power are.

Another point about Sanders that did not sit well with me was that, early on, he complained that the "superdelegates" existed at all. When it became clear that even without the superdelegates he wouldn't nominated, all of a sudden is was "superdelegates are fine, but they must vote for *me*". I found that to be understandable, in a horrible sort of way, but hypocritical in light of his earlier position.

Had Sanders gotten the nomination, I would vote for him, because even with the reservations I've noted, he is vastly better than Trump and he *does* have some good policy ideas...if only he can unbend enough not make best the enemy of good.

Ravi · 6 October 2016

When Mike Pence becomes VP, America will finally have someone who can kick Darwinism out of the school classroom.

Mike Elzinga · 6 October 2016

Ravi said: When Mike Pence becomes VP, America will finally have someone who can kick Darwinism out of the school classroom.
What is “Darwinism” and why would getting it “kicked out of the school classroom” be a “good thing?” With what would you have it replaced; and why would it be “better?”

Cogito Sum · 6 October 2016

To the Ravi crowd, as offered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in McCreary County v. American Civil Libertiesunion of Kentucky:

“At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish....Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”

Ravi · 6 October 2016

Mike Elzinga said: What is “Darwinism” and why would getting it “kicked out of the school classroom” be a “good thing?”
The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection as advanced by Charles Darwin.
With what would you have it replaced; and why would it be “better?”
Evolutionary theory would be scrapped and its components distributed among other areas of biology: 1. Mutation -> Genetics 2. Adaptation -> Ecology 3. Speciation -> Ecology 4. Natural selection -> Population biology.

phhht · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:
Mike Elzinga said: What is “Darwinism” and why would getting it “kicked out of the school classroom” be a “good thing?”
The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection as advanced by Charles Darwin.
With what would you have it replaced; and why would it be “better?”
Evolutionary theory would be scrapped and its components distributed among other areas of biology: 1. Mutation -> Genetics 2. Adaptation -> Ecology 3. Speciation -> Ecology 4. Natural selection -> Population biology.
Why would anyone want that to happen, Ravi? After all, evolution of species due to natural selection is an observed fact. Only religious loonies deny that fact.

DavidK · 6 October 2016

Yes, Pence is an avowed creationist and would dearly love to see creationism established in the public schools and evolution withdrawn. He doesn't care about science, only what he can grasp from his bible. He's been in Congress before, babbling about creationism and as VP he'd be a tie-breaker vote.

Here's a conspiracy thought. The GOP hates Trump but must support him. Republicans in Congress hate him as well, but desperately need a republican in the presidency. So, within a year of being elected, Trump is gone. There are many scenarios that would make this possible, which I leave to the reader. But the result of this "terrible tragedy" is that Pence would assume the presidency and right-wingers would rejoice. The Ravi's would delight in this, I'm sure.

gnome de net · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:
Mike Elzinga said: What is “Darwinism” and why would getting it “kicked out of the school classroom” be a “good thing?”
The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection as advanced by Charles Darwin.
With what would you have it replaced; and why would it be “better?”
Evolutionary theory would be scrapped and its components distributed among other areas of biology: 1. Mutation -> Genetics 2. Adaptation -> Ecology 3. Speciation -> Ecology 4. Natural selection -> Population biology.
You're two-for-four, Ravi. As a batting average, 0.500 is excellent; answering only half the questions on a school exam would earn a failing grade. Maybe this will help you see what you missed: Why would getting ["Darwinism"] "kicked out of the school classroom" be a "good thing?" Why would [your replacement] be "better?"

Just Bob · 6 October 2016

gnome de net said:
Ravi said:
Mike Elzinga said: What is “Darwinism” and why would getting it “kicked out of the school classroom” be a “good thing?”
The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection as advanced by Charles Darwin.
With what would you have it replaced; and why would it be “better?”
Evolutionary theory would be scrapped and its components distributed among other areas of biology: 1. Mutation -> Genetics 2. Adaptation -> Ecology 3. Speciation -> Ecology 4. Natural selection -> Population biology.
You're two-for-four, Ravi. As a batting average, 0.500 is excellent; answering only half the questions on a school exam would earn a failing grade. Maybe this will help you see what you missed: Why would getting ["Darwinism"] "kicked out of the school classroom" be a "good thing?" Why would [your replacement] be "better?"
The answer to both is, of course, "Jesus." And I believe it's been established previously that "Ravi" is a sockpuppet for a poster who was banned from this site for threatening physical violence.

Michael Fugate · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:
Mike Elzinga said: What is “Darwinism” and why would getting it “kicked out of the school classroom” be a “good thing?”
The theory of the evolution of species by natural selection as advanced by Charles Darwin.
With what would you have it replaced; and why would it be “better?”
Evolutionary theory would be scrapped and its components distributed among other areas of biology: 1. Mutation -> Genetics 2. Adaptation -> Ecology 3. Speciation -> Ecology 4. Natural selection -> Population biology.
So you are going to teach evolution, just call it something else? Kind of like intelligent design is just creationism with a new name?

Ravi · 6 October 2016

Michael Fugate said: So you are going to teach evolution, just call it something else? Kind of like intelligent design is just creationism with a new name?
No. We shouldn't waste classroom time teaching evolution as a subject within biology. Students don't need to know about how fish crawld out of the sea and changed into monkeys, but they do need to know about relevant aspects of evolutionary theory like mutation, migration, extinction and so on.

Ravi · 6 October 2016

phhht said: Why would anyone want that to happen, Ravi? After all, evolution of species due to natural selection is an observed fact. Only religious loonies deny that fact.
I am fairly sure that Ken Ham accepts speciation and adaptive radiation....within the created kind.

Ravi · 6 October 2016

DavidK said: But the result of this "terrible tragedy" is that Pence would assume the presidency and right-wingers would rejoice. The Ravi's would delight in this, I'm sure.
I am really excited at the prospect of a Trump-Pence science education policy. However, the first step is to appoint a new chief justice to the Supreme Court who will adhere to the constitution of the United States and outlaw the stealth teaching of atheism/deism through the medium of Darwinism.

phhht · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:
phhht said: Why would anyone want that to happen, Ravi? After all, evolution of species due to natural selection is an observed fact. Only religious loonies deny that fact.
I am fairly sure that Ken Ham accepts speciation and adaptive radiation....within the created kind.
But there are no "created kinds", Bozo Joe. Both you and Ken Ham are religious loonies, out of touch with reality. You see, Bozo Joe, there are no creator gods.

Ravi · 6 October 2016

phhht said: But there are no "created kinds".
Can a cat breed with a dog? If not, why not? Lemme give you a clue......they are separate kinds.

Ravi · 6 October 2016

Cogito Sum said: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”
Look, the cursed atheists want to ban the state-sponsored practice of Christmas and turn schools into centres of indoctrination for their non-belief. They want to prevent prayer in all public places controlled by the government. THIS IS PART OF A WAR ON RELIGION by misinterpreting the first amendment.

phhht · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:
Cogito Sum said: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”
Look, the cursed atheists want to ban the state-sponsored practice of Christmas and turn schools into centres of indoctrination for their non-belief. They want to prevent prayer in all public places controlled by the government. THIS IS PART OF A WAR ON RELIGION by misinterpreting the first amendment.
What paranoid nonsense. You crazy christians are such loonies.

phhht · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:
phhht said: But there are no "created kinds".
Can a cat breed with a dog? If not, why not? Lemme give you a clue......they are separate kinds.
Baseless assertion, Bozo Joe. There are no "kinds." You can't back up your crazy claims with any scientific evidence. All you have is what you have here - an indefensible claim.

W. H. Heydt · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:However, the first step is to appoint a new chief justice to the Supreme Court who will adhere to the constitution of the United States and outlaw the stealth teaching of atheism/deism through the medium of Darwinism.
I haven't heard that Chief Justice Roberts is at all likely to leave the Court any time soon. Since he's only 61, retirement or death are fairly unlikely for quite a number of years. There is only one way to actually remove him and that is impeachment followed by conviction, and unless he's caught in flagrante delicto (and probably not even then) that isn't going to happen. The ignorance of how various parts of government work runs deep...

W. H. Heydt · 6 October 2016

Ravi said:
Cogito Sum said: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”
Look, the cursed atheists want to ban the state-sponsored practice of Christmas and turn schools into centres of indoctrination for their non-belief. They want to prevent prayer in all public places controlled by the government. THIS IS PART OF A WAR ON RELIGION by misinterpreting the first amendment.
The problem with government approved prayer is...whose prayers get picked? If you really want government sponsored prayer, I'll go along with it...so long as I get to pick the prayers.

Cogito Sum · 6 October 2016

Obviously Ravi is extremely lacking in knowledge regarding Christmas practices at the time of our nation's founding. BTW how Colonial America celebrated Christmas varied considerably due to different religious and cultural perspectives – indeed “From 1659 to 1681, the celebration of Christmas was actually outlawed in Boston... Congress was in session on December 25, 1789, the first Christmas under America’s new constitution. Christmas wasn’t declared a federal holiday until June 26, 1870.” See Christmas history in America*.

In that referenced quote of Justice O'Connor concurring** in McCreary County v. American Civil Libertiesunion of Kentucky one of the core issues expanded upon addressed “preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society” - apparently something Ravi and his ilk would seek to undermine. This issue has nothing to do with science, it is about power and greed and those who under the guise of a (fundamentally reality flawed) religious sect seek dominion of others.

*http://www.thehistoryofchristmas.com/ch/in_america.htm
**https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1693.ZC.html

Yardbird · 6 October 2016

Raving Mad said:
Cogito Sum said: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?”
Look, the cursed atheists want to ban the state-sponsored practice of Christmas and turn schools into centres of indoctrination for their non-belief. They want to prevent prayer in all public places controlled by the government. THIS IS PART OF A WAR ON RELIGION by misinterpreting the first amendment.
Horseshit. You want to convince everyone that you are a victim because you and your "kind" no longer get to control the public sphere. Maybe you and your "kind" could actually breed with real people, but I'd be surprised if you got the chance.

Dave Luckett · 6 October 2016

Ravi, like Bohlin, like all militant creationists, does not seek to "undermine" the teaching of science. He seeks to abolish it, by decree. Witness his recipe - the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court must be summarily removed by some unconstitutional means to achieve the outcome he desires.

Ravi and Bohlin and their tribe simply cannot get two very simple propositions into their heads: one, in the US the State cannot endorse or support any religious doctrine whatsoever; two, the demonstrated facts known to science and the theory that explains them are not religious doctrines. Even atheism itself, which is not required for acceptance of the facts, is not a religious doctrine, despite their shrill insistence on that idiotic idea.

It really is as simple as that. They deny or ignore both of those. In flat defiance of the US Constitution, they demand that religion be taught in the public schools, and that it be their religion. And not only demand it; they campaign tirelessly for it, using every political weapon that a fertile mind unfettered by ethical concerns can devise.

They have now largely given up on any attempt to assail neo-Darwinian theory by reference to the actual science. A few are still trying to sneak pseudo-science into poorly refereed journals here and there, or to misrepresent established observations in one way or another. Most, however, have repaired to the political ramparts, but were routed at a national level, and are now working their mischief to the best of their ability at state and local levels.

In the purely political sense, they are substantial opponents: tireless, inveterate, ingenious, absolutely immune to reason, fanatical, completely oblivious to consequence, and above all, viscerally convinced of their own rectitude, no matter what transparently dishonest shifts, evasions, or expedients they must adopt, or what downright lies they have to tell. It's a formidable combination of qualities, one that genuine scientists often find difficult to deal with. To a scientist, the facts speak for themselves, provided that they be critically examined and their inferences rigorously pursued. To a creationist, there is simply no difference between fact and authoritative assertion, and the one can be substituted for the other at will. Witness Ravi, above, using the expression "created kind" as if there were the slightest evidence for either word. Pure assertion, resting on nothing but his will that it be true.

But will is all that really matters, to creationists. Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass" is the most devastating critique of their attitudes. Words mean what they want them to mean, and the only question is, who is to be master.

Ravi · 7 October 2016

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Ravi · 7 October 2016

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Dave Luckett · 7 October 2016

Ravi asks if I believe in democracy. By "democracy" he means, in this case, popular vote for all offices under the State. No, I don't believe in that.

Judges are, and should be, appointed on merit as recognized by their peers, with the approval, not the election, of the legislature. The United States Constitution gives to the President the right to nominate, not appoint, Supreme Court justices. Especially over recent years the sad result has been that the process has become political. Given the practical political power of the Court a completely impartial selection process would be difficult or impossible, but the primary qualification for the elevation of any judge to the bench of the Supreme Court must be the esteem of a broad section of his or her peers in the Judiciary, not his or her agreement with the President, or anyone in the legislature.

In other places, Ravi's pious attachment to democracy unravels completely. School prayer, for example. He doesn't like the present situation, which is as follows:

Anyone who wants to can pray in school, and the State may neither require, encourage, discourage nor prevent it. Prayer may not be part of a course of study, nor of a school-supported activity, nor a class or team exercise, nor undertaken under colour of instruction, sanction or threat of sanction by any person having to do with the school. The student who wishes to say grace over his lunch is free to do so. The manager of the school canteen cannot say it in the cafeteria as a public announcement. Members of a sports team may pray for whatever sports teams pray for; but the school and all personnel connected with the school may neither lead nor encourage it, and most particularly may not in any way sanction or penalize or criticize any student who does not join in. On the contrary, they are duty-bound to prevent any form of intimidation, bullying, or harassment of any student for this or any cause whatsoever.

But this is of course not the situation Ravi wants. He wants prayer to be encouraged and even required and he wants those who opt out to be pressured and harassed, and probably subtly penalized, or even not so subtly. Democracy? Democracy be damned. The back of my hand to Ravi's belief in democracy.

DS · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
W. H. Heydt said: The problem with government approved prayer is...whose prayers get picked? If you really want government sponsored prayer, I'll go along with it...so long as I get to pick the prayers.
Nobody is talking about the government approving or sponsoring prayer. What we demand is that the government does not prevent prayer in schools and thus hinder the free exercise of worship.
Yea right bazooka Joe. The government prevents prayer in school. Exactly how are the supposed to do that? How can they prevent anyone from praying to anything anywhere and anytime the want. They can't. Never could. Never will. How about if we make people pray to Thor? WoUld you like that bazooka Joe?

Just Bob · 7 October 2016

DS said:
Ravi said:
W. H. Heydt said: The problem with government approved prayer is...whose prayers get picked? If you really want government sponsored prayer, I'll go along with it...so long as I get to pick the prayers.
Nobody is talking about the government approving or sponsoring prayer. What we demand is that the government does not prevent prayer in schools and thus hinder the free exercise of worship.
Yea right bazooka Joe. The government prevents prayer in school. Exactly how are the supposed to do that? How can they prevent anyone from praying to anything anywhere and anytime the want. They can't. Never could. Never will. How about if we make people pray to Thor? WoUld you like that bazooka Joe?
Don't forget that the KIND of prayer that Bozo Joe wants in school is the KIND that was specifically forbidden by Jesus, i.e.in public, for all to see. The kind that apparently isn't good enough is the kind that Jesus specifically DID recommend, i.e.in private, secretly, which isn't, and by it's nature can't be, forbidden anywhere.

Ravi · 7 October 2016

DS said: Exactly how are the supposed to do that? How can they prevent anyone from praying to anything anywhere and anytime the want. They can't. Never could. Never will. How about if we make people pray to Thor? WoUld you like that bazooka Joe?
They prevent students from congregating to make use of public facilities for the purpose of worship and Bible reading. But if atheists do the same, only to read The Blind Watchmaker instead, then it's a science class.

Ravi · 7 October 2016

Dave Luckett said: Judges are, and should be, appointed on merit as recognized by their peers, with the approval, not the election, of the legislature. The United States Constitution gives to the President the right to nominate, not appoint, Supreme Court justices. Especially over recent years the sad result has been that the process has become political. Given the practical political power of the Court a completely impartial selection process would be difficult or impossible, but the primary qualification for the elevation of any judge to the bench of the Supreme Court must be the esteem of a broad section of his or her peers in the Judiciary, not his or her agreement with the President, or anyone in the legislature.
Judges have to be held to account lest they run roughshot over the law and ignore it. A guiding principle of the United States is the "consent of the governed." If the public or their representatives believe a judge to be corrupt, biased or incompetent, then he/she needs to be replaced. Half the members of the Supreme Court would almost certainly lose a vote of confidence by Congress if retention elections were required for them to remain in power.

Yardbird · 7 October 2016

Ravi said: They prevent students from congregating to make use of public facilities for the purpose of worship and Bible reading.
So you must be able to give examples of this egregious violation. Name some, or STFU.

Yardbird · 7 October 2016

Raving Mad said: Judges have to be held to account my beliefs lest they run roughshot over the law and ignore it make decisions I don't like.
Fixed it for you.

Michael Fugate · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
DS said: Exactly how are the supposed to do that? How can they prevent anyone from praying to anything anywhere and anytime the want. They can't. Never could. Never will. How about if we make people pray to Thor? WoUld you like that bazooka Joe?
They prevent students from congregating to make use of public facilities for the purpose of worship and Bible reading. But if atheists do the same, only to read The Blind Watchmaker instead, then it's a science class.
Oh grow up. This is nonsense. If someone does stop a student group, they just don't know the law.

Michael Fugate · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
Michael Fugate said: So you are going to teach evolution, just call it something else? Kind of like intelligent design is just creationism with a new name?
No. We shouldn't waste classroom time teaching evolution as a subject within biology. Students don't need to know about how fish crawld out of the sea and changed into monkeys, but they do need to know about relevant aspects of evolutionary theory like mutation, migration, extinction and so on.
Why? Should we stop teaching history?

W. H. Heydt · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
Dave Luckett said: Judges are, and should be, appointed on merit as recognized by their peers, with the approval, not the election, of the legislature. The United States Constitution gives to the President the right to nominate, not appoint, Supreme Court justices. Especially over recent years the sad result has been that the process has become political. Given the practical political power of the Court a completely impartial selection process would be difficult or impossible, but the primary qualification for the elevation of any judge to the bench of the Supreme Court must be the esteem of a broad section of his or her peers in the Judiciary, not his or her agreement with the President, or anyone in the legislature.
Judges have to be held to account lest they run roughshot over the law and ignore it. A guiding principle of the United States is the "consent of the governed." If the public or their representatives believe a judge to be corrupt, biased or incompetent, then he/she needs to be replaced. Half the members of the Supreme Court would almost certainly lose a vote of confidence by Congress if retention elections were required for them to remain in power.
...and the other half would lose the same vote if the other party came into power. There is a mechanism to remove rogue judges. They can be impeached and convicted.

gnome de net · 7 October 2016

W. H. Heydt said: There is a mechanism to remove rogue judges. They can be impeached and convicted.
For courts lower than SCOTUS, all states but four have another mechanism to remove judges: it's called "elections" or "voting".

Ravi · 7 October 2016

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Ravi · 7 October 2016

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

phhht · 7 October 2016

Ravi said: It isn't history. It is storytelling. Students need facts not speculation.
Got any facts which support the reality of your gods, Ravi? No, of course you do not. All you've got is baseless assertion.

W. H. Heydt · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
W. H. Heydt said: There is a mechanism to remove rogue judges. They can be impeached and convicted.
Impeachment would only work if the judge had broken the law. We need elections to remove judges who are biased, intransigent and beholden to special interest groups like the LGBTs and atheists.
An impeachable offense is whatever the House of Representatives says it is. There are no laws on what a judge can be impeached over and all the Constitution says is "high crimes and misdemeanors", leaving it up to the House to decide what that means. Unlike you, I prefer a judiciary can actually act as a check on Congress and the President without fear of whatever social or political winds may blow.

Yardbird · 7 October 2016

Raving Mad said:
W. H. Heydt said: There is a mechanism to remove rogue judges. They can be impeached and convicted.
Impeachment would only work if the judge had broken the law. We need elections to remove judges who are biased, intransigent and beholden to special interest groups like the LGBTs and atheists.
Look down. You're standing in a pile of drool.

Yardbird · 7 October 2016

Yardbird said:
Raving Mad said:
W. H. Heydt said: There is a mechanism to remove rogue judges. They can be impeached and convicted.
Impeachment would only work if the judge had broken the law. We need elections to remove judges who are biased, intransigent and beholden to special interest groups like the LGBTs and atheists.
Look down. You're standing in a pile of drool.
puddle, that is. Or a pile of something that rhymes.

RJ · 7 October 2016

Ravi is a scary, scary guy. He doesn't really seem like a Nazi to me, but rather more like a Christian fundamentalist Pol Pot (not as smart however). It's rare to see anyone so steeped in Newspeak, with so little self-awareness. Americans: please defeat Trump! We can expect racist violence regardless; within 4 years violence against atheists and secularists would be sure to follow throughout the county.

Unlike Ravi, I love America. And unlike RB, I am loyal to Canada.

Be well Panda crowd.

Ravi · 7 October 2016

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

phhht · 7 October 2016

Ravi said: Unlike you, I believe in WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES and not some unelected, unrepresentative civil official who thinks he/she can interpret the law as he/she pleases.
You mean like Kim Davis? Or Roy Moore?

Yardbird · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
W. H. Heydt said: Unlike you, I prefer a judiciary can actually act as a check on Congress and the President without fear of whatever social or political winds may blow.
Unlike you, I believe in WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES and not some unelected, unrepresentative civil official who thinks he/she can interpret the law as he/she pleases.
So, then you can believe all the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES that tell you that you're full of shit.

Dave Luckett · 7 October 2016

What utter nonsense. Any person who thought that would never make it out of law school. Or even into one. Judges do not interpret, and could not interpret, the law as they please, but only in strict adherence to well-known principles of interpretation and in accord with precedent stretching back to the Middle Ages. They are always subject to check. Even the Supreme Court's decisions can be overturned by Constitutional amendment in the Legislature, or in my country by referendum.

Far better that they be short-listed by their peers, selected by the executive, and confirmed by the legislature, to be removed only by impeachment, than that they should have to consider the local popularity of their decisions, or their effect on the likes of Ravi and his tribe.

Just Bob · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
W. H. Heydt said: Unlike you, I prefer a judiciary can actually act as a check on Congress and the President without fear of whatever social or political winds may blow.
Unlike you, I believe in WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES and not some unelected, unrepresentative civil official who thinks he/she can interpret the law as he/she pleases.
Well, y'see, the problem is that way back in the 1700s THEY THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES agreed to a little thing we call the Constitution, Article 3 of which establishes the federal judiciary, and Article II, Section 2: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.” Of course if you think those Christian Founding Fathers, and all the people who voted to ratify the Constitution, were dead WRONG about the best way to appoint SCOTUS justices (you unAmerican fascist!) then you could start a movement to amend our sacred Constitution.

Yardbird · 7 October 2016

Raving Mad said:
W. H. Heydt said: There is a mechanism to remove rogue judges. They can be impeached and convicted.
Impeachment would only work if the judge had broken the law. We need elections to remove judges who are biased, intransigent and beholden to special interest groups like the LGBTs and atheists.
What about the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce?

W. H. Heydt · 7 October 2016

Ravi said:
W. H. Heydt said: Unlike you, I prefer a judiciary can actually act as a check on Congress and the President without fear of whatever social or political winds may blow.
Unlike you, I believe in WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES and not some unelected, unrepresentative civil official who thinks he/she can interpret the law as he/she pleases.
We have recourse in such cases. We have elected representatives who can remove any elected official or judge that abuses his office, an executive branch that can fire appointed officials that go off the rails. What we *don't* have is a system that looks anything think like the French Reign of Terror, which is what you appear to want.

Yardbird · 7 October 2016

W. H. Heydt said:
Ravi said:
W. H. Heydt said: Unlike you, I prefer a judiciary can actually act as a check on Congress and the President without fear of whatever social or political winds may blow.
Unlike you, I believe in WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES and not some unelected, unrepresentative civil official who thinks he/she can interpret the law as he/she pleases.
We have recourse in such cases. We have elected representatives who can remove any elected official or judge that abuses his office, an executive branch that can fire appointed officials that go off the rails. What we *don't* have is a system that looks anything think like the French Reign of Terror, which is what you appear to want.
By his behavior here and on other sites, it appears he wants to be universally reviled.

DavidK · 8 October 2016

Impeachments and elections are all very good checks on unbridled power. But a SCOTUS appointment is for life and it would be very difficult to remove one. Scalia was one such justice who voted on his personal religious beliefs, and he spoke publicly about his feelings regarding issues before the court. I suspect he would have supported 'teach both sides' had it come up to the court. Thankfully he's gone, but now we're in limbo as the republican bimbos in Congress refuse to appoint a replacement, rather, they only sit on their thumbs while they collect their salaries.

harold · 8 October 2016

DavidK said: Impeachments and elections are all very good checks on unbridled power. But a SCOTUS appointment is for life and it would be very difficult to remove one. Scalia was one such justice who voted on his personal religious beliefs, and he spoke publicly about his feelings regarding issues before the court. I suspect he would have supported 'teach both sides' had it come up to the court. Thankfully he's gone, but now we're in limbo as the republican bimbos in Congress refuse to appoint a replacement, rather, they only sit on their thumbs while they collect their salaries.
You don't need to suspect; his opinion is known. He wrote the dissent in Edwards V. Aguillard, that is, he did, indeed, strongly support the teaching of fundamentalist creationism as science in US public schools. This is despite his ostensibly being both a deeply religious Catholic and an "originalist". Teaching creationist dogma as science in taxpayer funded schools violates the most fundamental "original" concerns of the constitution, and of course, Catholics are the largest single religious groups whose rights would be violated by such a thing. In fact the strong separation of religious dogma from public education we enjoy is particularly a result of Catholic immigration during the nineteenth century. Catholics did not want Protestant prayer and dogma as part of the public school curriculum their taxes paid for. (Tiresomely, I'll need to point out that I am not Catholic, nor even religious, that this is merely a historical reference, and that criticisms of the Catholic Church in other areas are not relevant to this comment.) At the end of the day, Justice Scalia cared only about supporting what is now, to refer to it with terms that did not yet exist in 1982, just for convenience, the Fox/Limbaugh/Tea Party movement, including the religious right. In private, it's said that he would drive for hours on Sunday to hear a Latin mass. As a judge, he supported the infliction of minority Protestant dogma on captive Catholic students in public school science classes, apparently only because this was the "conservative" side in his mind. So often he claimed that his harsh decisions were necessitated by "originalism", but when modern right wing political fashions were sharply at odds with literally the first amendment in the very original constitution, "conservative movement" strategy trumped that, too. I won't celebrate a tragic, unexpected death, but I will say I wish he had retired long before, or refused appointment on the grounds of his inability to decide cases objectively.

Cogito Sum · 8 October 2016

Unfortunately the American Republican Party with its current ultra right wing leanings, in concert with its alliance/influence of radicalized religious zealotry of such as Ravi's ilk, seem to long for a replacement of our judiciary with an inquisition's auto-de-fé. That they are being used to serve purely moneyed interests doesn't seem to phase their authoritarian mindset of seeking to make us as a nation believe their absurdities in pursuit of their sponsors' for profit atrocities.