Texas Editorial Supports Creationism — & More!

We recently posted Texas Republicans — They’re All Creationists, about that state’s coming election for lieutenant governor, and the news that each of the four GOP candidates has proudly declared his support for creationism.

Rather than being embarrassed — the Amarillo Globe-News of Amarillo, Texas is running an editorial that expresses pride in the situation: An old controversy continues to evolve.

It’s odd that this editorial is in the newspaper of the town where Amarillo College is located. You recall that we recently wrote about how that feisty institution had the fortitude to cancel a creationist course, a rational decision that caused a howl of anguish from the Discoveroids — see Discoveroids’ Crazed Reaction to Amarillo College.

For your morning’s entertainment, here are a few excerpts from today’s editorial, to which we’ve added a bit of bold font for emphasis:

The four GOP candidates for lieutenant governor in the state of Texas — arguably the most competitive and interesting statewide race on the ballot — were recently quizzed about the teaching of creationism (by the standard definition) in public schools.

And from the sky is blue and the water is wet category, the foursome expressed support for creationism. (Although why this should come as a surprise to anyone with a basic understanding of Texas politics is — like belief in a higher power — hard to believe, at least for some.)

Lordy, lordy. They’re saying: Hey, what’s all the fuss? The sky is blue, and Texas politicians are all creationists. That’s natural! Oh, you’re not from around here, are you?

It gets worse. A paragraph later the newspaper vomits all over itself and says:

God forbid (or make that the federal government forbid) that public school students be presented with a diverse and extensive curriculum for understanding the theories of the origins of mankind. This kind of freedom of thought cannot be tolerated in America (sarcasm intended).

But wait — then it gets much worse:

Patterson [one of the creationist candidates] made a valid point that cannot be argued: “Show me where that’s in the Constitution, because it’s not in the Constitution,” Patterson said of the separation of church and state, the determination made by the U.S. Supreme Court that forms the basis of the argument for those who want religion (or let’s be honest, Christianity) removed from the public square.

Aaaargh!! This isn’t a letter-to-the-editor penned by some maniac in a shack. It’s a newspaper editorial! We’ve been through this “separation of church and state” topic several times before — see Is America a “Christian Nation”? — but if you know all that, you’re probably not from Texas.

Now that we see how truly messed up the editorial writers are, let’s read on:

It is also interesting how a phrase — “the separation of church and state” — not found in the U.S. Constitution is regarded by some as undeniable and unchanging as far as the law of the land. However, legislation passed by Congress in 1954 adding the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance does not enjoy the same permanency.

Head swirling, dear reader? Quite understandable. The editorial concludes with this:

Ultimately, the creation of controversy does not matter. At least these four candidates have the guts to state their beliefs, and the voters know where these candidates stand, at least on this issue. Voters who do not agree do not have to vote for any of the four candidates. Nothing controversial about that.

Nothing we say here will change anything. Texas is seriously confused, and they seem to like it that way. Therefore, merely because it’ll make us feel better, we’ll shout into the wind, in words that they may understand: People of Texas — y’all don’t know diddly squat!

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

6 responses to “Texas Editorial Supports Creationism — & More!

  1. The right to free speech is always exercised way ahead of the moral duty to be adequately informed and truthful. Newspaper editors are hardly exempt from this prioritisation, especially where scientific matters are concerned. Your pool of typical liberal arts graduates in which reporters and editors float to the surface is woefully ill-informed on science. Their idea of “balanced reporting” is usually a complete and utter travesty.

  2. Charles Deetz ;)

    There are a lot of things that aren’t in the constitution that are established and enforced. They obviously read the Bible and the Constitution the same way … literally and without context or reality.

  3. I understand that part of the reason for fighting your Civil War was to retain Texas as part of the Union.

    What I don’t understand is: why?

  4. Please, please Texas, seccede from the U.S. and away with ye.

  5. … Patterson [one of the creationist candidates] made a valid point that cannot be argued: “Show me where that’s in the Constitution, because it’s not in the Constitution,” Patterson said of the separation of church and state, the determination made by the U.S. Supreme Court that forms the basis of the argument for those who want religion (or let’s be honest, Christianity) removed from the public square.

    James Madison (who probably knew a thing or two about the Constitution):

    Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov’t in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

    (An argument I’ve run across is that SOCAS is a valid concept, but is only meant to keep the state out of religion, and not the other way around- the “one-way wall” argument. You’ll notice that, in that Madison quote, he’s talking specifically of the “danger of encroachment” by religion into government)

    I have to wonder with politicians and editorial writers like these- is their understanding of law and government really so grade-school simplistic as all that, or is it just to their advantage to present themselves that way to their voters and readers? (A mixture of both, I suspect).

    I doubt this sort of thing is confined to Texas, though- my feeling is that the only reason it’s not an issue here in Mississippi is because nobody really cares what happens in Mississippi (including a lot of folks in Mississippi).

    (Been a while since I commented here, SC, but I’ve pretty much kept up reading your stuff- it’s as great as ever)

  6. Good to have you back with us, aturingtest.