Two years ago or so I wrote an essay called "The Reverse Marshall Plan" which held that - even as the United States funded the reconstruction of a devastated Europe following the Second World War - Europe and other nations might do well to be concerned by the prospect that the throw weight and heft of American military might could fall into the hands of a theocratic, Christian supremacist political movement : in fact they might be wise to fund a "reconstruction" of American belief in science and the worth of secular government or - for that matter - the understanding that certain basic facts cannot be banished by faith, prayer, or sufficient saturation bombings of advertising and indoctrination.

My argument held that this cultural effort ( analogous in many ways to the three or more decade effort waged by the Christian and America right, the "Long March Through the Institutions" ) would - however galling considering the preeminence of American pop culture - be very cheap insurance compared to the consequences of failing to do so.

Perhaps the time to dust off that piece has come.

by Bruce Wilson on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:53:03 PM EST

You could also ask him what he would say when Paul Stookey denounces those who want to interpret the words to "Puff the Magic Dragon" as codeword for pot smoking.

Behind that radio hosts response is the assumption that the constitution is a sacred document that was divinely inspired.  Are all the amendments inspired as well?  Including the amendment to prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol?  If the Constitution was divinely inspired and can be amended, what about the Bible?  Is he prepared to concede that all sacred documents can be amended?  If only parts of the Constitution are inspired by God, how do you identify which parts are inspired and which parts aren't?

As for the creationist/intelligent design/evolution debate, I don't bother to try to talk to them about the details of evolutionary theory.  Their minds are made up about it.  I just talk about how small their conception of God is.  They can't believe in a God who doesn't conform to their conception of how God created life.  It's a lot like the response that Galileo faced when he tried to get church leaders to look through his telescope and look at the planets for themselves.  They could not believe in a God who didn't conform to their conception of how God created the universe (a geo-centric solar system instead of heliocentric one).

by Mainstream Baptist on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 04:55:47 PM EST

While the US is interfering with stem cell research and genetic engineering the rest of the developed world is moving ahead. Most of the recent developments in these areas have been elsewhere.

What happens when, say, China discovers a vaccine for cancer and then refuses to share the discovery with us? Their costs of doing business will be less and they will be able to out compete us.

The theocrats don't realize what the consequences of their lust for power will be: rulers of a ruin.

-- Policies not Politics
by rdf on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 06:16:54 PM EST

In my musings about what would constitute a "distinguishing" advance in my field, my mind frequently wanders to Creationism. If there were truly a smoking gun out there that showed the evidentiary basis of modern evolutionary theory to be bunk, then surely someone is working hard to find it. If they did find it, of course, they would be set for life. Sure, they'd run into huge skepticism at first, as all major discovery's do, but if it were legitimate, it wouldn't be ignored.

The bar that such a discovery would have to top is very high. I'm thinking a fossilized rabbit skeleton in Paleozoic strata. But, if it's out there, and it overthrew much of what we understood to be true about macroevolutionary change, then someone will find it, and someone will be famous.

But it hasn't been found. Nothing like that ever has. Soft tissue around dinosaur bones isn't enough, because it's possible that a very unlikely set of taphonomic circumstances were present during its fossilization.

The fact of the matter is that there are thousands of biologists like myself who are desparate for a job. If there were the possibility of making a name for oneself out there doing Creation Science, we'd be doing it, and it would gain acceptance.

A scientist's need for a job does not cause conformance, as a Creationist would argue, but rather the need to deviate to gain recognition. The drive to employment is science's Invisible Hand.

by matt on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 01:44:47 AM EST

We are introduced to the account of the creation of the earth in Genesis 1:1-2: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without
form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep."

The original Hebrew wording, compared with other passages of Scripture, has led some to conclude that a considerable time interval is indicated between
these two verses. If such an interval is indeed intended, there is no discrepancy between the Bible record and scientific discoveries that indicate that
the earth could be much older than a few thousand years. If, on the other hand, there is no such gap, then the earth itself must be only around 6,000 years
old-which most scientists consider an impossibility.

Do other passages, as well as history, shed any light on this question?

Some scholars propose that Genesis 1:2 can or should be translated "Now the earth became without form, and void . . ." as opposed to the common rendering
"The earth was without form, and void . . ." Others dismiss this idea entirely. They assume the original Hebrew word hayah must be translated "was" and
then assume the earth was originally created in this disorderly way.

However, as can be seen from many Bible helps, both translations of the term are possible. Only the context of the chapter and book can determine which
one is correct. Gleason Archer, professor of biblical languages, comments: "It should be noted in this connection that the verb was in Genesis 1:2 may
quite possibly be rendered 'became' and be construed to mean: 'And the earth became formless and void.' Only a cosmic catastrophe could account for the
introduction of chaotic confusion into the original perfection of God's creation. This interpretation certainly seems to be exegetically tenable . . ."
(A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody Press, Chicago, 1974, p. 184).

In a footnote Archer adds: "Properly speaking, this verb hayah never has the meaning of static being like the copular verb 'to be.' Its basic notion is
that of becoming or emerging as such and such, or of coming into being . . . Sometimes a distinction is attempted along the following lines: hayah means
'become' only when it is followed by the preposition le; otherwise there is no explicit idea of becoming. But this distinction will not stand up under
analysis. In Gen[esis] 3:20 the proper rendering is: 'And Adam called the name of his wife Eve, because she became the mother of all living.' No le follows
the verb in this case. So also in Gen[esis] 4:20: 'Jabal became the father of tent dwellers.' Therefore there can be no grammatical objection raised to
translating Gen[esis] 1:2: 'And the earth became a wasteness and desolation.'"

Some scholars also argue against translating hayah "became" instead of "was" in Genesis 1:2 because they assume this interpretation came about only recently,
after geology revealed the strata of the earth to be very old. Thus they consider this explanation a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account
with modern geology. The explanation that there existed an indefinite period between the initial beautiful creation described in Genesis 1:1 and the earth
becoming waste and void in verse 2 has been called, sometimes disparagingly, "the gap theory." The idea was attributed to Thomas Chalmers in the 19th century
and to Cyrus Scofield in the 20th.

Yet the interpretation that the earth "became" waste and void has been discussed for close to 2,000 years. The earliest known recorded controversy on this
point can be attributed to Jewish sages at the beginning of the second century. The Hebrew scholars who wrote the Targum of Onkelos, the earliest of the
Aramaic versions of the Old Testament, translated Genesis 1:2 as "and the earth was laid waste." The original language led them to understand that something
had occurred that had "laid waste" the earth, and they interpreted this as a destruction.

The early Catholic theologian Origen (186-254), in his commentary De Principiis, explains regarding Genesis 1:2 that the original earth had been "cast downwards"
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1917, p. 342).

In the Middle Ages the Flemish scholar Hugo St. Victor (1097-1141) wrote about Genesis 1:2: "Perhaps enough has already been debated about these matters
thus far, if we add only this, 'how long did the world remain in this disorder before the regular re-ordering . . . of it was taken in hand?'" (De Sacramentis
Christianae Fidei, Book 1, Part I, Chapter VI). Other medieval scholars,such as Dionysius Peavius and Pererius, also considered that there was an interval
between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, the Dutch scholar Simon Epíscopius (1583-1643) taught that the earth had originally
been created before the six days of creation described in Genesis (1952, Vol. 3, p. 302). This was roughly 200 years before geology discovered evidence
for the ancient origin of earth.

These numerous examples show us that the idea of an interval between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 has a long history. Any claim that it is of only recent origin-that
it was invented simply as a desperate attempt to reconcile the Genesis account with geology-is groundless.

Perhaps the best treatment on both sides of this question is given by the late Arthur Custance in his book Without Form and Void: A Study of the Meaning
of Genesis 1:2. Dr. Custance states, "To me, this issue is important, and after studying the problem for some thirty years and after reading everything
I could lay my hands on pro and con and after accumulating in my own library some 300 commentaries on Genesis, the earliest being dated 1670, I am persuaded
that there is, on the basis of the evidence, far more reason to translate Gen. 1:2 as 'But the earth had become a ruin and a desolation, etc.' than there
is for any of the conventional translations in our modern versions" (1970, p. 7).


by Dave on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 06:26:26 PM EST

Who knows what the future will bring, but for now I'm talking to people I know and maintaining a blog at http://tinsoul.blogspot.com

Everyone remember my story, that I was converted, and know that the only thing that keeps the religious right from the truth about our country and about their own God is education. And just as many of them do not care to research American documents and history, they also do not crack the Bible, only relying on what they hear from their pastor or friends. For example, if they would just read Romans (and lots of other books as well in the Bible) they would see how tolerant and impartial God is.
Take care, keep up the good fight, and I'm not talking about fisticuffs either.

by Tin Soul on Sat Jun 17, 2006 at 07:56:00 PM EST

In the case you described, it's unlikely a Christian-nationalist radio host is going to make concessions on-air to a reality-based worldview.  But communicating with the audience is another matter.

One of the distinctive features of fundamentalism is fear.  Freud thought fear was a major part of all religious beliefs.  But it's especially prominent with fundis: fears of gays, feminists, public schools, whatever the bogeyman of the week is.  And probably the single most important message you're delivering to an audience like that is that you can discuss issues of importance to the Christian Right in a knowledgeable way but without fear.  That in itself is a very important message that some of the audience must get across the epistemological divide:  "Not everyone is scared of going to Hell if they don't agree with this stuff".

I find that one of the most frustrating things about the fundis is that they are quick to resort to duplicity to duck criticism.  This is partly due to their emphasis on proselytizing, which is a form of salesmanship.  And often their pitches resemble those of the proverbial used-car salesmen.

I relate that tendency to the phenomenon you describes so well in your book, the deceptive practices used by fundis in "stealth" candidacies for school boards and other local offices, in sex-education programs anti-abortion "counseling" centers that knowingtly that promote medical misinformation, and in the entire "creationist" enterprise.  The latter is a pseudoscience whose only purpose is to discredit science and promote a conservative Protestant view of creation; a scam, in other words.

Emphasizing those kinds of deceptive practices seems a useful approach to me.  First, because they are real problems.  Second, they challenge the fundis on their own ethical grounds, because to most people, deliberately scamming others that way just sounds wrong.

One story in your book that I found particularly impressive in that regard was your description of how anti-abortion protesters will sometimes present a friendly pitch to women coming to a center for an abortion and offer them a cup of juice, knowing that having the liquid will prevent them from having the procedure then.  That's not only deceptive.  There's an element of just plain meanness about it.  Surely some people will understand that across the Great Divide.

I also find that a little theology goes a long way in those interchanges.  St. Augustine, the first great Latin/Western Christian theologian and a key influence on Martin Luther, said (I believe it is in The City of God) that the Scriptures are meant to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.  That is still the basis of the Catholic Church's approach to reading the Bible; John Paul II even quoted that in response to a question on creationism.  This is a way to frame the fundis' position as a departure from the mainstream Christian tradition.  That is also a challenge on their own grounds and one likely to resonate with at least some of the audience.

In addition, I try to remember that for all their high-minded religious dogmas they like to display for outsiders, the Christian Right is heavily influenced by historical traditions like white Southern segregationist thinking and, as you also describe in your book, the John Birch Society.  And yet they are hyper-sensitive about being labeled as racist or anti-Semitic.  So focusing on topics that point out how neo-segregationist their thinking is also strikes me as a good approach.

And, finally, the fundis are caught in a contradiction.  They believe their way is the best for everyone, and yet their religious outlook tells them they are the godly minority in a sinful world.   They are constantly complaining that they are persecuted, like with the whole bizarre "war on Christmas" hype.  Anything that debunks their claims of persecution also has a good chance of communicating with people on the other side of the reality-based vs. fundamentalism-based split.

I've also found a couple of books particularly useful, both written from the point of view of explaining Christian fundamentalism to other Christians who have occasion to come into conflict with them:  Catholicism and Fundamentalism (1988) by Karl Keating and Fundamentalism (2004) by Fisher Humphreys and Philip Wise.  Jimmy Carter's book Our Endangered Values (2005) is a better-known work in something of the same vein, though not addressed so exclusively to Christian churchgoers.

Even if arguing from a secular position, it's helpful to be able to challenge the fundis' exclusive claims to owning the Christian faith.  It reframes the discussion from religion vs. secularism (aka, atheism, heathenism in the fundis' way of thinking) to a reality-based view vs. a particular, narrow version of Christianity that most Christians do not practice.


by Bruce Miller on Sun Jun 18, 2006 at 01:38:57 AM EST

Debates are a competitive activity, a win/lose situation.  Winners feel happy to have won the debate; losers feel unhappy to have lost.  I know that I generally felt annoyed and somewhat unhappy, even exasperated, when the people I was debating refused to listen to the carefully arranged logical steps of my argument.

I believe that feelings are far more important than intellect.  Feeling respect and compassion for ourselves and for others is the key to a peaceful world.  Gandhi and Mother Teresa are preeminent examples of this attitude.  Cooperation is much more effective than competition in creating spiritually healthy relationships.

Thus I believe that discussing with fundamentalists what we have in common as human beings is a far more effective, beneficial, and benevolent approach than debating belief systems.

As a result, I don't argue with or debate fundamentalists of any religion anymore.  Instead, I see them as people just like me trying to do our best to live in a very complex social world, and I try to relate to them on this basis.  We both need food, clothing, housing, meaningful jobs, good health, friends and family, and adequate wealth to support our needs.  These are the things to emphasize, and these are the things that most of the people in the world desperately need and are seeking.

If we can focus our efforts in these areas and relate primarily from our hearts, not primarly from our heads, to those who are different from us , emphasizing not competition, not debate, not win/lose, but cooperation and sharing of simarilities and of how much we are alike, then I think we will help heal the current polarity that is so divisive and harmful.

by gfross on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 07:48:26 AM EST

Interestingly, Schweitzer herself is a devout Christian (to the point she keeps Bible verses at her desk), and in the article she expresses shock and alarm that her research is being deliberately misused by young-earth creationists (who have also apparently demonised her rather viciously when she has pointed their errors out).

On debate with dominionists, I'm not sure this will ever be entirely productive, in part because (as you noted) they do live in a parallel universe of sorts; their media, their educational systems, their very theology, etc. do a very good job of isolating them both physically and psychologically from opposing views that may challenge them.  (The most radical extension of this is probably in "spiritual warfare" and "deliverance ministry" theologies within dominion theology, where opposing views are literally condemned as Satanic.)

Not so much with the Southern Baptists (yet, anyways), but with the really hardcore Christian Reconstructionists and with the Assemblies and other neopente groups heavily into "dominion theology", you have groups that are stepping over the line or have stepped over the line to being bona fide coercive religious groups--debating, say, evolution or the concept that people have inborn tendencies towards sexual orientation with someone in the Assemblies is about as productive as debating the merits of psychotherapy with an active Scientologist--and for identical reasons.

I've written quite a bit on the subject of at least hard dominionism as a coercive religious group (and several groups within the hard-dominionist movement--notably, several Assemblies fronts like Youth With A Mission, as well as Amway, Maranatha, "third wave" pentecostalism in general, "shepherding" movements, etc.--are already widely considered coercive).  Realising that these groups have "thought stopping" techniques that are designed to squelch any testing of one's faith, are designed to break BS meters, etc. gives one some insight as to why it is so frustrating to try to debate them.

A few articles of particular note:
Dominionist groups as coercive religious groups? (focus is on "hard" dominionism)
Dominionism and coercive tactics, part 1 (listing of various spiritually abusive tactics common in dominionist groups, using multiple accepted checklists)
Dominionism and coercive tactics, part 2 (direct comparison of spiritually abusive tactics in "deliverance ministry" groups within the spiritual-warfare movement and the Church of Scientology)
Dominionism and the coercive mindset (discussion of "thought-stopping" techniques and isolation in hardline dominionist groups in specific relation to why it's almost impossible to debate them)
Kingdom Now/Dominion/Restoration Theology (discussion of the particular flavour of dominionism most common in neopente communities, and also the flavour most commonly associated with frank spiritual abuse)
Rick Warren's Dirty Dominionist Secret (discussion of Paul Yonggi Cho, major promoter of spiritually abusive tactics in the Assemblies of God, with discussion of relationship of Cho with Rick Warren--which could have grave implications for the spread of spiritually abusive tactics, due to Warren's popularity)
Death by "chastening rod" (and the other posts in that series) (discussion on how spiritually abusive dominionist churches often promote physical abuse of children as a direct extension of spiritual abuse in those congregations)
Senate "annointer" curses WV mine tragedy families (discussion of spiritually abusive tactics within the Assemblies and other neopente churches)
Bush as "God's appointed president"? (discussion of how "code words" are used in hardline dominionist communities--a common practice in spiritually abusive groups in general)
Divide and Conquer: Cell Churches and Hijacks (article on "shepherding" in spiritually abusive dominionist churches; this is increasingly used not only as a church hijack tool but as a method of exercising iron control over members of spiritually abusive churches)
"Faith Based Coercion" in recovery programs (description of spiritually abusive tactics in a dominionist-run program promoted as a "Christian alternative" to 12-step recovery programs)
Court rules against "faith based coercion" programs (in part describes spiritual abuse within Prison Fellowship Ministries' programs)
An informative expose of a Battlecry Event (describes several attendees' reports of the BattleCry rally held in Philadelphia, PA; this gives good info on how people are recruited and kept within these movements)
The following anthology of articles related to Ron Luce's Teen Mania Ministries will also be helpful, as they do use similar tactics to most spiritually abusive dominionist groups.

by dogemperor on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 11:25:11 AM EST

My experience is that we never can get through to Bob Dutko, or to his tribe.  The best we can do is to let them talk, and reveal their own preposterousness.

The most mysterious thing about these people is their rock-solid certainty.  They want to be sure about everything always.  So they never will accept information or an idea from anybody outside their Christianist frontier.

But just let them talk.  They reveal themselves.  Most of us will not follow them, if we hear what they actually say.  They have peaked.  I hope they are headed back to the hinterlands.

by Tom Neely on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 04:09:28 PM EST

For example, your talk show host said:
"We spent the first part of our nearly hour-long interview talking about church state separation, which he, of course, believes to be something the founders never intended."

So, he is saying that it doesn't matter what the document actually says, it is what the writers intended that is important in the interpretation...

Then, later on, he says:
"To which he responded that what matters is what the document says, not what the individual founders intended..."

He's just contradicted himself!  So, which is it?  Intention or how it is actually written?
You can't argue that it is both ways at the same time...

Granted, folks here have made valid points - that the person you are debating might never believe you, or consider your viewpoint at all, no matter how good your evidence... but, the seed has been planted, if not for the person you are debating, then perhaps for others who are listening.

If nothing else, you might be able to get your opponent a bit flustered... that's always fun... ;>

-Emily
emilywynn.blogspot.com


by EmilyWynn8 on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 04:13:14 PM EST

First, many on the Christian Right are dismissive of others. Think of the way Hilary Clinton is spoken of. Do we wish to imitate this dismissive behavior?

Second, replying with kindness and love will make a difference. The Right often uses so much hate language, that reciprocating in love communicates.

Third, dismissing people is a way to de-humanize them. We should simply never do this.

Left on the Right


by chipmunk on Mon Jun 19, 2006 at 04:51:29 PM EST

Creationist propaganda is wide but actually quite limited, with the same claims being echoed from one "pundit" to another. Just about every point they make has been collected and rebutted in the Index to Creationist Claims at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.

For example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC371_1.html
Claim CC371.1:
Soft, flexible tissue, complete blood vessels, and apparently intact cells were found when a Tyrannosaurus bone was broken open (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Such preservation indicates that the bones are only a few thousand years old, not millions of years.
Source:
Wieland, Carl. 2005. Still soft and stretchy. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp
Response:

   1. The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).

   2. The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).

   3. DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.

Links:
Hurd, Gary S. 2005. Dino-blood redux. http://www.talkreason.org/articles/DinoBlood.cfm
References: ...

• Note that traditional and national time-frames get equal standing.

• "September" is a name from the ancient Roman calendar - by Dutko's logic, that's an endorsement of the old pagan pantheon of Jupiter, Juno, Mars & the gang.

• By my calculations, 9/17/1787 was a Monday: had the founders bothered to mention this, should we take that as allegiance to Wiccan moon-worship?

Because, apparently, that is what they are doing.  I am just realizing that they take all their ideas from Christianist and conservative gurus.

They seem not to think for themselves much, and they seem to get confused if we speak of our own personal experiences.  They are like the people at the office water cooler who always talk about what they saw on TV last night, and never laugh if you tell a joke from somewhere else.

These Christianist leaders believe they have The Scheme of Things all figured out.  They hate the idea that mystery is more holy than certainty.

SO!  I believe what Chipmunk said in this thread about addressing the followers rather than the leaders is wonderful.

And there are some interesting replies in another thread, "Your Assumptions Will Not Save Your Skin", that expand on that approach.

by Tom Neely on Thu Jun 22, 2006 at 10:11:19 AM EST