Cradarc wrote:I've been hesitant to say this because I'm not sure how it would be accepted, but I think it couldn't make things worse at this point:
I am a Christian (but not a YEC).
One thing that is impossible to communicate to atheists is that there are people who genuinely have a relationship with God, and there are those who simply seek Christianity as a way to make themselves feel better. To atheists, there is no difference because the former is a deluded version of the latter. However, it makes all the difference when I consider why Christians do the things they do.
*shrug* Reasons and the how they approach things definitely matter. I've tried to be clear that creationism is the domain of christian(and muslim) extremists, not everyone, I hope. Plenty of folks don't take it to that level, and still define themselves as Christian or whatever.
Which seems to be almost entirely overlooked by those who see creationism as essential for Christianity, and evolution as intrinsicly opposed.
Cradarc wrote:The driving force behind fundamentalist Christians is not their religious beliefs, but an us vs. them mentality. "Creation science" didn't exist until science did. Sexuality realignment (don't know technical term) didn't become widespread until the publicity of homosexuality did. Their actions are defensive, not offensive. They are trying to protect what they feel is valuable and under attack. They are afraid of what they don't know.
I agree that they have an Us v Them mentality. However, I do not agree that their actions are defensive. Yes, that's how THEY see their actions, but that's not the case in reality. Often, they are pursuing change toward a theological goal that isn't even historical. That goes well beyond mere defense of a belief.
We ain't putting Creationists in camps to change their mind. Nobody's even supporting that. So, no, they ARE the ones of the offensive, regardless of what they claim.
I know that Christians just love this idea that they're a persecuted minority and the big bad atheists and gays are out to destroy their Biblical life and Christian nation, but, can we be realistic here for a moment? Polling
consistently puts the number of Young Earth Creationists at around 40% of the population. This is not the view of some tiny, persecuted minority; it's a view of a huge plurality, if not majority, of Christians. Society isn't offended by Christian values; society embraces, extols, supports, and enforces Christian values. Christians are, and always have been, the dominant power group in the United States. They occupy an overwhelming majority in Congress and the Senate
; every president since Hayes
has been openly Christian; the sitting Supreme Court is Christian majority
, as has every past Supreme Court since the founding of the country. 46 out of 50 state governors
were Christian as of 2012. Leaders of major Christian churches have direct, private access to key government officials, up to and including sitting presidents
. And this is all reinforced by a huge network of politically active, tax-exempt churches working to advance their worldview. Fundamentalism isn't a "pest"; it's a pandemic.
This is true, but we have to be somewhat careful here. Not all christians are necessarily seen as "us" by some of the more extreme factions, and goodly chunks of christianity are also not fundamentalists(catholics, for instance, are a fairly large block that's usually somewhat more moderate). They're significant, sure, and hardly just one or two cranks, but fundamentalist influence is still somewhat less than overall christian influence.
The fact that they view this still fairly significant power as persecution is strange, though.
Ya'll defending the Creationist viewpoint are welcome to view my other threads. I routinely take a fairly generous view of religious freedoms. You want to not make wedding cakes for gays because of your religion? Fine. I won't lobby for a law against that. I'll merely opt to not purchase from those sorts of places.
But there's gotta be a line, and it's gotta be short of overt religious beliefs enshrined in law, or being forced on others, or society being outright dismantled in service to religious beliefs.
morriswalters wrote:Welcome to a democracy. Maybe the founding fathers were right and everyone shouldn't have the vote.
If you're going to have a democracy, your results are going to be constrained by the knowledge of the public. If you have a scientifically illiterate populace, well, one can only expect so much from their representatives.
This makes anti-scientific attacks on education all the more dangerous.
morriswalters wrote:Dangerous is a loaded word with subtexts. ISIS is dangerous, trigger happy cops are dangerous. These people are insular and ignorant. Even self deluded and bigoted. They are a lot of things I don't like. They are also my next door neighbors and coworkers.
I'm sure trigger happy cops have neighbors who would happily say they are nice people too.
Just because they're not dangerous to YOU doesn't mean they're not dangerous at all.
Is the word "dangerous" now too politically incorrect to say? What next? Shall we forgo more descriptive terms for those who cause harm, simply because the people doing them dislike them? Murderer, for instance. Oh my, very perjorative. Shall we cease using that term? Even when factually true?