skip to main |
skip to sidebar
No, there were no star crossed lovers or gang rumbles on the dance floor last night at Famous Dave’s in the Uptown area of Minneapolis. But there was a clash of cultures. West Side Story features the irreconcilable differences between two Ethnic cultures. Last night I observed the much less violent and even somewhat humorous intersection of two dance cultures – salsa and swing.
A little background is in order. The Uptown Famous Dave’s restaurant at Hennepin and Lake in southwest Minneapolis doubles as a live music hot spot. Although mostly a blues club, on Monday and Tuesday nights they offer music and dancing in arguably the two most popular dance genres for young people today: Monday night is swing night; Tuesday is salsa night.
My wife and I love to dance. Although we dabble in a variety of dance styles in the general social/ballroom repertoire, we are primarily swing dancers. Now, we won’t pretend to be able to keep up with the 20 something’s who tear up the floor on a typical Monday swing night, but for 50 something’s we hold our own. What I’m trying to say is that in terms of dance culture, we are clearly Jets…er…swingers.
This was painfully clear one of the nights we tagged along with our daughters to a Tuesday salsa night at Famous Dave’s. Although I can do the steps and execute the figures involved in salsa dancing, I am no salsa dancer. I don’t get it; I don’t feel it; I don’t live it. One of my daughters succinctly summed up my effort at the end of the night: “Dad, it’s just too ‘swingy’”.
Well, last night I saw the other side of the mirror. I don’t know if the guy just got his calendar wrong and thought it was Tuesday, or if he truly just loves to dance so much he is willing to step out of his Sharks' territory and cross over to Jet turf, but he clearly was in culture shock. To paraphrase my darling daughter, his dancing was just too “salsa-y”. Don’t get me wrong, he was a really good dancer. I could see he had all the steps down and all the right moves, but there was something noticeably “off” about his dancing. It just was not swing.
“What”, you may ask, “could possibly be so different that you can tell someone is steeped in one style while dancing the other?” Well let me tell you.
Salsa and swing styles[1] are polar opposites. They are the ying and yang, the north and south pole, the Sharks and Jets of up tempo social dancing. One might think it is just because the musical basis is different – African/Latin American for salsa vs. jazz/blues/rag time for swing. But it goes far beyond that. At the core, the difference is in the physics of the dances themselves.
Salsa is smooth where swing is bouncy. In salsa the woman is continually drawn in where in swing she is constantly being cast out. Salsa is a face to face rendezvous; swing is two ships passing in the night. Salsa is a paper clip; swing is a rubber band. Salsa is a chili pepper roasting; swing is popcorn popping. Salsa is controlled; swing is frenetic. Salsa is all hips and arms; swing is all elbows and feet. Salsa can make you blush. Swing can make you bruise. Salsa is intimate where swing is anything but. Salsa is sexy! Swing is sassy!
So, why do I even care? Two reasons. First, I would like to become a better salsa dancer. Although embarrassing my kids is one of the few pure pleasures I have in life (and just compensation for the teen years), I prefer to do it without embarrassing myself at the same time. I think salsa proficiency is within my grasp.
Of course, the mirror has two faces. We are travelling to CA next month to visit our daughters and our older daughter would like us to teach her Latino boyfriend how to swing dance. He is a very good salsa dancer, and I’m sure he will have no problem with the steps. It is more a physics problem. After last night’s Shark-Jet encounter, I think I know where to start.
Notes
[1] For the dance virgins out there - salsa and swing are not just specific dances, they are families of dance. Salsa encompasses salsa, cumbia, bachata, merengue, and others. Swing includes east coast swing, lindy hop, jive, charleston, and others. Here I am referring far more to the families than the individual named dances, as most accomplished dancers in either style shift seamlessly (almost magically) between different dances in the family even within the same song.
There is a strange alliance out there between patriarchy and the quiverfull movement on one hand, and the Roman Catholic Church on the other. The common ground between these two seemingly incompatible antagonists: contraception. It is the contention of the anti-contraception, or, as they might call themselves, the pro-conception camp that the use of contraception, even natural contraception for the most radical of these groups, is not only "bad" family practice but is outright sin. One would hope that there are biblical arguments to back up these accusations. Alas, as often happens, scriptural support for an anti-contraception stance is virtually non-existent. Still, they make the arguments. My purpose in this post is to rebut the most common of these arguments.
I will be looking at three elements of the anti-contraception position - their three pronged attack if you will. The first section deals with their interpretation and application of the Genesis 1 (and Genesis 9) statement to "be fruitful and multiply". The second section will tackle the infamous "Onan incident". And the third will dig into the topic of sex and marriage and their purposes. Here we go!
"Be Fruitful and multiply"
The first prong of the anti-contraception attack is an interpretation of Genesis 1:28 that makes that blessing a godly command for each and every couple. Conversely, I interpret the command in Genesis 1:28 (if it even is a command which is grammatically debatable) to be directed to the human race in general, and not to each specific marriage. I see several very troubling paradoxes if it indeed applies to the individual marriages and I would be interested in how the other side would solve these.
The "set up to fail" paradox. If "be fruitful and multiply" is a command for every marriage, and if God is the opener and closer of wombs, then God purposely sets up some marriages to fail His command by closing the wombs of the women. Indeed, anyone who is infertile has been set up to sin by God if this command applies to them.
The "not quite good enough" paradox. If we take seriously the "multiply" component in the command, then each set of parents (and that could be 2 or more in ancient marriages) must produce at least one more offspring than the total parents in the family. To fail to produce enough to multiply the race is to fail the command even if there are children in the family. A review of scripture reveals quite an impressive list of families who have "come up short". Just a short list:
Isaac & Rebekah
Joseph & Asenath
Dan & his wife
Moses & Zipporah
Elimelech & Naomi
Boaz & Ruth
Zachariah & Elizabeth
If it is a sin to not increase the population then why is the sin of these families not exposed? Why no condemnation for their failure to "multiply"?
The "called to serve" paradox. Although the marital relationships of Jesus' disciples are not detailed in the bible (except for Peter), it is certain that some, maybe most, possibly all, were married. Many commentators also believe that it is virtually impossible that Paul was not married due to his position in the religious hierarchy. The fact that he speaks of singleness later may be due to the gifts received at his conversion. So, if the purpose of marriage is to procreate, how could Jesus call these men out of their God commanded duty? Did Jesus lead these men into sin by taking them away from their wives?
Dilemmas such as these abound both in scripture and in the here and now if we interpret Genesis 1:28 to be a literal command meant for every set of parents.
It should also be noted that the "contraception contravenes God's command" perspective is quite ungodly. Wade Burleson has pointed out this flaw in a recent blog post as one of his 8 points of rebuttal to the quiverfull theology.
(2). The notion that anyone "prevents" God from naming the number of kids a family has is anti-biblical, anti-logical, and anti-God at its core. Contraception no more "prevents" God from creating a baby who "could have cured AIDS" or "been the President of the United States," etc. than a man shouting at the sun can keep it from shining. God ordains the creation of each human soul, and nobody prevents Him from accomplishing His plans. The sheath of a condom, or the dissolution of a pill, is no more an obstacle to God in the creation of a human being than the lack of matter was an obstacle to God in creating the universe. (Exposing the Biblical Holes in Quiverfull Theology)
The "Onan Incident"
WARNING - Some adult themes and activities are discussed in this and the next section. Please act responsibly. If you are under 15, OR, regardless of age, believe your parents may object to you reading this, please ask them to review the post before reading it yourself.
For those who don't know, the "Onan Incident" is chronicled in Genesis 38:1-10. Onan's sister-in-law had not born any children prior to her husband's (Onan's brother) death. The law stated that Onan should marry his brother's wife and have children (preferably a son) with her to carry on his brother's blood-line. Onan deceitfully refused to fulfill his obligation to get his sister-in-law pregnant. He accomplished this by having sex with her but withdrawing prior to ejaculation and "spill[ing] [his seed] on the ground" (Genesis 38:9). Because of this, God put Onan to death. The question in this debate is "what specifically was Onan's sin?" Anti-contraception advocates argue that the sin was his contraceptive act of coitus interruptus. They extend this interpretation to the point of claiming that any and all contraception at any time is displeasing to God (i.e. sin) and even occasionally go to the point of claiming anyone guilty of the sin of contraception deserves Onan's fate. But is Onan's contraceptive act what he was put to death for?
My conclusion about the Onan incident is that the means he employed to accomplish his sin are irrelevant. The ends don't condemn the means. There are many ways in which he could have accomplished his deceit that in and of themselves are perfectly fine. It is not the action that is sinful but the outcome. Onan was killed for fraud, idolatry, covetousness, lying, and mocking God. How he went about doing that is beside the point. Let's flesh that out.
Consider: if it is only the contraceptive act that is the sin, then all of the other surrounding issues become irrelevant. It is irrelevant that he deceived his father and the community. It is irrelevant that he defrauded his brother. It is irrelevant that he humiliated and defiled his wife. It is irrelevant that he mocked the law and God. All of his treachery is irrelevant if it is simply the contraceptive act that is the sin. In fact, he could have spent a lifetime being fruitful and could have multiplied greatly with Tamar and only done this act once, and according to those opposed to contraception, he would have been guilty of the same sin and deserved and received the same punishment. To disregard all of his wicked intents and manipulations in contemplating what his sin was is quite astonishing.
There is an interesting twist to this little story. The NIV has a very different translation from every other version.
Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. (NIV)
Is it possible that he perpetuated this ruse repeatedly over a period of time? If so, and it is the act itself that is the sin and deserves death, then why did God not strike him down the first time. Conversely, what does it say about the sin that God let him perpetuate it without correction. Certainly, no one would claim that it only became a sin upon repeated execution and after a certain number of repetitions.
I would suggest that God continued to give Onan a chance to repent and set things right. That had he finally changed and made the attempt to fulfill his duty, God would have left him alone to live out his days. So much for the contraception being the sin. Only after it became clear that Onan was determined to continue the fraud, did God pass final judgment. Again in this case, the actual actions used in the fraudulent exercise are really irrelevant. Onan could have employed multiple means to avoid impregnating Tamar and he would have been as guilty. Why? Because it was the fraud itself that was the sin, not the means by which it was achieved.
(BTW - I don't necessarily endorse the NIV translation, but am only accepting it here to explore all sides of the question.)
The Purpose of Marriage and Sex
The final argument by the anti-contraception movement is that the primary, or even, the sole purpose for marriage and sex is to have children. Let's take each of these in turn.
"The purpose of Marriage is procreation" - This seems silly even at a glance because marriage is not a pre-requisite to procreation. If all God wanted for us was to pop out babies, he would have let us fornicate like bunnies and we could have accomplished the task just fine. So, it seems clear God has something grander, or even completely different, in mind when it comes to marriage.
Genesis 2:18,24 - 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.
At it's core, the reason for marriage is "oneness". Men and women are not complete alone - they need the marriage union and the "one flesh" relationship that results to fully follow and commune with God, to interact and manage the world we live in, and to experience the companionship we so desperately need. Without marriage, the world would be much more of a chaotic place.
Having children relates to marriage in a strange and somewhat contradictory way. Indeed, we do not need children to enjoy the benefits of marriage that are outlined in this verse. But, children are a blessing from the Lord and can enhance the marriage experience. Children also can introduce tension into marriage that tears away at the oneness that marriage was designed to foster. Yet children benefit greatly by having parents in a committed, loving, unified, "one flesh" relationship. So, at best, we can only say that procreation has both positive and negative effects in relation to marriage. Hardly a strong case for children being the "purpose" for marriage.
1 Cor 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.
A mere chapter later from the Genesis verse quoted above, humans messed up everything. Immorality entered the world and created yet another purpose for marriage. Together, we are better equipped to fight the immorality around us. Marriage is an often necessary component to living a Godly life. Again, marriage itself isn't the cause of children. Children can be produced by immoral behavior as easily as moral behavior. So the idea that procreation is presumed as part of the marriage admonitions in 1 Cor 7 is ridiculous. It is more accurate to say that children are presumed in life regardless of marital state. But to avoid some of the immoral failings we are all prone toward, it is best if we get married. Let the children fall where they may.
Revelations 19:7 "Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready."
Lest we not forget, marriage is also a picture of Christ and the church. As such, it is a means by which a couple can enhance their communion with God. Through marriage, God is praised and glorified. Children, again, are not part of this formula. Barren couples can join in this worship and communion as well as exceedingly fruitful couples. The number or even presence of children is irrelevant in this very important purpose for marriage.
In conclusion, I find it hard to find any evidence in the scriptures that the purpose for marriage is having children. Quite the contrary, it seems the purpose for marriage has everything to do with the couple, their needs, their impact on the world, their relationship to each other, and their relationship to God. It seems to me that children are not even on the radar when we look at the purposes for marriage.
And what about sex...
"The natural Godly purpose of sex is procreation" - Understand what is being said here. This proposes that the only natural purpose for sex is to have children. Any other purpose for sex is unnatural and ungodly. So, what do the scriptures have to say about that?
The most logical place to start is Song of Solomon. This wonderful erotic love poem in the bible extols sex as a gift from God for the enjoyment, pleasure, bonding, and relationship building of the marriage. There is no sense trying to quote verses because the whole book is the proof. God designed sex for our pleasure and to help us grow in our attraction and love for one another. Now, sex does not equal love, of course. But much love is expressed through sexual relations.
Ezekiel 16:8 - "Then I passed by you and saw you, and behold, you were at the time for love; so I spread My skirt over you and covered your nakedness. I also swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became Mine," declares the Lord GOD.
Another clear purpose of sex in God's eyes is as the covenant sealer in marriage. We did not make up the term "consummate the marriage" out of thin air. It is a biblical concept. Many times in scripture, both in good situations and bad, sex is seen as the "handshake" to formalize the marriage. Now, that doesn't mean that you are married to anyone you have sex with. But the value of sex in making a marriage a Godly marriage is evident. In fact, each time a couple has sex, they are in essence re-covenanting with each other. So this concept of "sealing" the marriage vow through sex is very important in God's overall design for marital relations.
Proverbs 5:18-19 - 18 Let your fountain be blessed, And rejoice in the wife of your youth. 19 {As} a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.
Again we see the sexual relationship has purpose in relationship building. In fact, this passage goes on to tell how a dynamic and consistent sexual relationship is a guard against adultery (much as 1 Cor 7 shows it as a guard against fornication). Sex should be so "exhilarating" and "satisfying" in our relationship that "wild horses couldn't drag us away" from our spouse. Here the purpose for sex is literally to defend the marriage from attack and to create an unbreakable bond with each other. If sex were about the pure mechanics of making babies, it would have no effect in building strong marriages. This scripture indicates that it is for so much more.
1 Cor 7:3-4 - 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
Sexual relations are to be equal and reciprocal. God recognizes that men and women both have sexual desires and needs. The patriarchal concepts that sex is a right for men and a duty for women are wholly unbiblical. The most important thing to note here is that women have just as much of a right to sexual access and enjoyment. But there is no need for women to enjoy sex if it is just for making babies. So, why would God build in sexual need and enjoyment for women if His only purpose for sex was procreation? Well, he wouldn't.
God designed sex in a unique way in human beings and that uniqueness is what embodies God's purpose for sex in the human race. Having sex to make babies is what we share with all of creation. Having sex to bond with a spouse, build a relationship, and experience pleasure, are the natural purposes that God bestowed uniquely on the human race. In fact, scripture abounds with sexual references with these purposes in mind. On the contrary, having babies is really an after affect. What scripture really says is - have sex because it's good for you and may you, in return, be blessed with children.
Bristol Palin granted an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren on February 18th, 2009, and it has caused a firestorm of criticism from...conservatives. Apparently Bristol is sending the wrong message to teens regarding abstinence. Conservative radio host Bill Bennett even laments her crossing over into, and contributing to, policy debate. But did Bristol really send the wrong message? I suggest that conservative critics have erred by thinking Bristol was addressing teens in her comments. Having raised two teen girls myself, and having heard comments similar to Bristol's many times from them and their peers, I took her comments to be directed to a totally different audience - the very people who are outraged. Let's explore exactly what went down in her sit down with Greta.
First I would like to dispel the notion that Bristol in some way is representing her mother - Governor Sarah Palin, the Alaska executive branch, the Alaska Department of Health, the Alaska Department of Education, or even the Palin family in any way in this interview. Bristol makes it clear that the decision to do the interview was hers and hers alone. She didn't even inform Gov. Palin that she was doing it until the day before. There is no indication that she was prepped by her parents or any other officials or that she was pressured into either giving the interview or say anything she said. True to Palin individualism, this is Bristol's interview and nobody else’s. The idea that her comments somehow impact the policy debate about abstinence is as silly as saying an interview with Jamie Lyn Spears impacts policy. Conservatives (and many liberals including the President) defended the Palin family's right to privacy during the campaign, rightly arguing that the private affairs of a candidate's daughter do not impact the candidate's policy and positions. Funny now how they think the private opinions of a Governor's daughter have some policy or position impact on the Governor's administration. Especially when the daughter clearly states that this interview is with her and about her, not her mother the Governor.
So what did Bristol say that has everyone in a tizzy? At one point, Van Susteren asked a series of question regarding the circumstances which led to Bristol's pregnancy, specifically regarding birth control and abstinence. Here is the exchange:
VAN SUSTEREN: I don't want to pry to personally, but I mean, actually, contraception is an issue here. Is that something that you were just lazy about or not interested, or do you have a philosophical or religious opposition to it or...
BRISTOL: No. I don't want to get into detail about that. But I think abstinence is, like -- like, the -- I don't know how to put it -- like, the main -- everyone should be abstinent or whatever, but it's not realistic at all.
VAN SUSTEREN: Why?
BRISTOL: Because -- I don't want to get into details on this.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, no, I don't mean personally, just big picture, not -- not necessarily about you, but...
BRISTOL: Because it's more and more accepted now.
VAN SUSTEREN: Among your classmates and kids your age?
BRISTOL: Among -- yes, among kids my age.
VAN SUSTEREN: How do you change that?
BRISTOL: To see stories like this and to see other stories of teen moms and just -- it's something that's -- I don't know, just -- you should just wait 10 years and it'd just be so much easier.
Now, when I first read that section of the transcript, I didn't bat an eye. I understand what she means from a teen perspective about abstinence not being realistic and teen sex being accepted. Does that mean she is throwing up her hands regarding abstinence or that she is promoting acceptance of teen sexuality? That seems to be what her critics think. Taking the position that she is addressing teens as a mentor, they decry the lack of a forceful denouncement of her actions and a strong advocacy for abstinence education. There are several errors in this presumptive reaction.
First of all, we must remember that Bristol Palin is still only 18 and is rather embarrassed that she and her boyfriend messed up and got caught in doing so. The rambling nature of her response and the reluctance to go into details shows that she is not at a point in her maturation to face the responsibility of being the next abstinence education poster girl, or any kind of role model for teens. If Bristol had an agenda to get the word out to teens that abstinence is silly and sex is fine, she would have had a far bolder and more coherent response planned. She makes it clear elsewhere in the interview that, despite the joy her son brings to her, getting pregnant at 17 is a bad, bad idea. In fact, her own suggestion that everyone wait for 10 years (presumably after high school) shows she is generally in support of abstinence as a philosophical idea.
Is she in support of abstinence as a practical practice though? I think she is and this is where I believe the critics have misread her. You see, her message is not directed at teens in my opinion, it is directed at parents and educators. Even reading the transcript one can sense the angst she is feeling. What she is saying to those adults listening is "abstinence is really, really hard." In fact, Bristol Palin is not the first but far down a long, long line of girls I know of who had everything going for them in terms of family values, religious convictions, strong self esteem, and loving parental guidance and STILL ended up pregnant before their high school graduation. Bristol is telling us that even with all the advantages she had, it is not enough if the message she gets in the long run is "just say no" to sex. Teens have way too many overpowering influences in their life to have sex, to leave it to simple will-power and ideals to abstain. Bristol's message is this - "if it can happen to me...are you listening parents and curriculum advisors...it can happen to anyone…ANYONE!" It doesn't mean you are a bad kid and it doesn't mean you think teen sex is "acceptable" and it especially doesn't mean that you didn't want to abstain. It means only that you haven't yet developed the critical decision making skills to cope with sexuality. To tell kids to "just say no" and assume they have the maturity to follow through "in the heat of the moment" is, as Gov. Palin put it, "naive".
Now, does that mean abstinence education can't work? Of course not! But it needs to take a drastically more robust form if it is going to impact a broader range of kids, especially the Bristol Palins of the world who have at least a fighting chance of remaining chaste. Bristol informs us of what we are up against: raging hormones, peer pressure, broad cultural acceptance of promiscuity, and plain old bone-headedness. If we want kids to say "no" to sex, instead of simply telling them that abstinence is the alternative we recommend and prefer, we need to do a far better job of proving to them that abstinence is in their best interests and the best choice for their body, mind, and soul. According to my girls' recounting of the abstinence ed in their high school, we have a long way to go.
(The full, preliminary transcript of the interview can be found here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,494205,00.html)
What can I say about Alec Baldwin? I have watched him for years on talk shows, and in comedic appearances on T.V. and movies, and the guy never fails to make me laugh. And I mean big time laugh, complete with gasps for air and "spit-takes". But then I remember his politics and it makes me want to engage in a whole different kind of spitting up. How can I love a guy so much who I so can't stand? Such paradoxes make me feal as if my head is going to explode (or at the very least I'm going to do a lot of spitting).
Baldwin's charmingly self-deprecating cameo on Saturday Night Live the other night with Sarah Palin was hysterical (only William Shatner self-parodies better, imo). His gracious defense of her SNL appearance in his blog entry on the Huffington post was quite noble. But the almost sure fact, SNL hyperbole aside, that he actually does think she is "that horrible woman" is infuriating. Alec, why can’t you just be consistently despicable so I don’t go through these emotional rollercoaster rides?
Alas, if only Alec Baldwin were alone in producing this struggle in me. Unfortunately, he is just the third leg of the stool. Shirley McClain and Barbara Streisand also drive me nuts by delivering stupendously wonderful performances in the execution of their art while simultaneously delivering stupendously horrific performances in the elucidation of their politics. What is a media loving conservative to do?
"I need to know if she really thinks that dinosaurs were here 4,000 years ago. I want to know that, I really do. Because she's gonna have the nuclear codes." Matt Damon
I knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
(Matt should stick to what he knows best)
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.
Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:
All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society
These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.
It is clear from the churches she has attended and from her very unabashed statements regarding God that she is Christian. It is also clear, at least to me, that she would fall into the evangelical camp. Moreover, she has stated a positive position regarding creation. So, assumption one, while not universally true, is mostly true about Sarah Palin.
As far as being a young-earth creationist, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, she has only made the very general comment "I believe we have a creator", a view supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (not to mention the Pope), even though they also believe in evolution. Moreover, she has staked a neutral position regarding timelines and creative methodologies, stating "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". So the second assumption is at least very premature regarding Sarah Palin, and probably not true at all.
Now is Sarah Palin a creationist revolutionary, believing that evolution should be completely excised from science curriculum and replaced with intelligent design? Here, the record is crystal clear. When campaigning for Governor she stated a personal preference for teaching both theories: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". She later clarified that position by stating that she was not advocating a curriculum change per se, but instead was expressing the belief that debate over competing ideas fosters critical thinking in young adults as well as being healthy for science in general: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Most scientists, I would think, would agree, as both peer review and rebuttal are integral components in scientific progress. So, Matt’s third assumption is demonstrably false.
But maybe this was just a Trojan horse. Maybe these were just bromides to pacify those dupes up in Alaska so they would elect her and then she could unleash her evil plot to destroy the hearts and minds of poor unsuspecting public school children. After all, actions speak louder than words, right? So what is her record as Governor? Again, the truth is there for every one to see. She has steadfastly stuck to her pre-election promise to not push for creationist teaching in schools. In fact, her refusal to get embroiled in social issue politics on the job and her ability to separate personal convictions from constitutional dictates has endeared her to Alaskans of all political stripes. Not only is Matt utterly wrong about Christians in general in his last assumption, he apparently has not done any research on Sarah Palin before jumping to those erroneous conclusions.
I will leave his last statement alone because it is so immature and lacking in logical thought that it requires no more piling on from me. Apparently Matt lives in some kind of Dr. Strangelove-esque fantasy world where one’s belief in the age of the universe is directly related to one’s nuclear trigger-happiness.
Posts
