March 22nd, 2005
Terri Shiavo’s sad condition and subsequent intervention into it by the federal government (at the behest of the Republican leadership), should be extremely illustrative of what has become of the Republican party — and an indication of what faction of the social-conservative movement has taken control of that pary. Any moderate Republican, concerned with limited government, should be paying close attention at how social/cultural issues are being used by the social-conservative faction that’s at the helm of the Republican party to advance a narrow social agenda. Ladies and gentleman, what this faction of the Republican party is really after is imposing and codefying their brand of “morality” on us — and, to do so, the social-conservative wing of the Republican party is willing to enlist the full-weight of the federal government on its behalf; thus abandoning any long-held pretense of being the party of state rights and of limited government. If we — the citizens of this country — are not careful, we may very well see a federal government that is permitted into our bedrooms (i.e.,”Gay marriage”), is able to use surveillance on its citizens (i.e., expanded “Patriot Act”) and, now, it seems, the federal government is being urged to intervene into what should be a private of decisions — all because a certain faction within the Republican party deems it expedient to do so in support of their agenda and of ther base.
Again, I sincerely hope that so-called moderates everywhere are paying close attention to this case… because there’ll be more like it if we permit it.
March 21st, 2005
How important a factor is quality of life to the Terri Shiavo tragedy? Or is absolutism the only item that some people care about? That is, quality of life doesn’t matter, as long as her body can be maintained functioning by any artificial means necessary. And, of course, there’s the other issue, how much intrusion by the federal government should we permit into what is an extremely personal matter, best resolved by the immediate parties involved?
Finally, do keep in mind that the only reason why certain groups (in the federal government and elsewhere) are focusing so intently on this one case is because they belive that they can score political points — given the “circus” they’ve created around what should’ve been a private matter. This, unfortunately, is the sad truth.
For instance, note that while other cases (i.e., 03.15.05 – Texas infant removed from life support with backing of Texas law) are ignored by the federal government and the media, Shivo’s tragedy garnered a special Congressional session. Again, the only reason why this occurred is because the party in control of Congress believes they can politicize the issue, and thereby score political points with their supporters. Back to the Texas law mentioned above, Texas Futile Care Law, the law was signed into the books by then governor George W Bush (after reaching a compromise and in consultation with the National Right to Life organization — [article]).
Interestingly, at the heart of the Texas Futile Care Law, cited above, is this rationale:
“(e) If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient unless ordered to do so under Subsection (g).”
In other words, if the patient can’t afford to pay for treatment, and if no other hospital is available to take the patient, the hospital can seek to refuse treatment — including life support. (Which is exactly what’s occurring in this other Texas case.) Now, if the party in control of Congress and of the White House truly cared about the issue, and not merely about scoring political points with their supporters, why aren’t they calling for special sessions to step into this and other cases as well?
November 20th, 2004
Some just refuse to accept modernity. Given the following, it appears that any candidate (read: Bush) willing to pander and wear his religion on his sleeve, starts off with a about a third of the popular vote faithfully built in:
———————————————————————
*Gallup has been asking the following for many years, here are this year’s results*
EVOLUTION
Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is � [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don’t you know enough about it to say?
- Supported by evidence: 35%
- Not supported by evidence: 35%
- Don’t know enough to say: 29%
- No opinion: 1%
[...]
Yet, [evolution] is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: “The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
CREATIONISM
The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God — as stated in the Bible — essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings — [ROTATE 1-3/3-1: 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so]?
- Man developed, with God guiding: 38%
- Man developed, but God had no part in process: 13%
- God created man in present form: 45%
- Other/No opinion: 4%
BIBLICAL LITERACY
Although 45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago — a view that corresponds to the account of creation as presented in the Bible — only 34% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word:
Which of the following statements comes closest to describing your views about the Bible — the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word, the Bible is the inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally, or the Bible is an ancient book of fables, legends, history, and moral precepts recorded by man]?
- Actual: 34%
- Inspired: 48%
- Fables: 15%
- No opinion: 3%
BELIEF IN A LITERAL BIBLE AND IN CREATIONISM
A segmentation of Americans based on their responses to the questions about creationism and biblical literacy finds that a quarter of Americans can be considered to be true literalists — believing not only in the literal interpretation of the Bible, but also in the creationist view of the origin of humans.
25% of U.S. population is considered to be biblical literalists and believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):
- Women
- Age 30 and older
- No college degree
- Conservative
- Republicans
- Weekly church attendees
- Protestant
20% of U.S. population is considered to believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago, but not biblical literalists. (These are the group’s major characteristics):
- 18- to 29-year-olds
9% of U.S. population are considered biblical literalists but do not believe humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):
- High school or less
46% of U.S. population are not biblical literalists and also do not believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago. (These are the group’s major characteristics):
- Men
- East and West Coasts
- Urban
- College graduates
- Higher income
- Liberal
- Independents
- Seldom, never attend church
- Catholics
THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF SUPPORT FOR DARWIN’S THEORY OF EVOLUTION
% Who Believe that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution Is a Scientific Theory Well Supported by the Evidence
*Subgroup*
————————
- Postgraduate education: 65%
- Liberal: 56%
- College graduate: 52%
- West: 47%
- Seldom, never attend church: 46%
- Catholics: 46%
- 50- to 64-year-olds: 44%
- Men: 42%
- East: 42%
- 18- to 29-year-olds: 41%
- Independent: 40%
- Democrat: 38%
- Moderate: 36%
———————————————————————
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=14107
November 12th, 2004
Bob Jones and his ilk — which compose our own American brand of radical clerics — have declared a war of civilizations against those that do not share their worldview. These radical clerics have issued fatuahs against modernity and progress, and — if it were up to them — these radical clerics and their followers would impose an authoritarian Theocracy on one of modern history’s greatest exponents of Liberty, Reason and Progress: America.
I that there are millions of conservative Christians that firmly believe in the correctness of their convictions. Well, I — and millions more across this nation — firmly belive in correctness and righteousness of our convictions, too. And, of course, both our camps stand diametrically opposed on many issues — especially in regards to the strict separation that must exist between church and state.
As I sit here, it is perfectly clear to me that the single greatest impediment to social progress, peace and “modernity” in the Arab world is a constant flirtation with Islamic Theocracy. In 2001, just before our forces went into Afghanistan, there was a lot of talk about being engaged in a war of “civilizations”; and that we would be liberating Afghanistan from the hands of a group of “strict interpreters of spiritual scriptures,” the Taliban. Well, many Americans have died — in part — to liberate the Afghan people from the clutches of an authoritarian Theocratic regime; and it would be a shame if, as our military tore down such a regime abroad, that radical clerics here erected a theocracy at home.
I’m afraid that many on my camp have not yet taken the threat of our radical clerics here at home seriously enough, and by the time that they do, it might be too late. Already these radical clerics have marshaled millions to more rapidly tare down the center pillar of our nation: the separation between church and state.
