THE Washington Post has an article by Reihan Salam, described as a New America Foundation Fellow. We haven’t previously encountered either him or that foundation, but both are interesting. Today’s article is preceded by this introduction:
Every Wednesday, Reihan Salam examines the ideological struggle for the future of American conservatism and how to revitalize the Republican party.
The article, which seems to be a transcript of Salam’s remarks and his answers to questions from an audience, is titled: What the Republican victories in N.J. and Va. mean, was NY-23 about national issues?, and it’s subtitled: “A free-wheeling conversation about the Republican future.”
We’ll skip most of it, except for some remarks in response to questions that are relevant to The Controversy between evolution and creationism. We’ll give you those excerpts, with bold font added by us:
Question: [A]re Chris Christie [who won the governorship of New Jersey] and Doug Hoffman [conservative candidate for Congress] religious conservatives, or do they simply oppose abortion and gay marriage? That’s an important distinction — I generally define “religious conservatism” and “religious right” as encompassing belief in dominion theology, but one doesn’t have to hold that belief to oppose either abortion or gay marriage. I would be interested in knowing where Christie and Hoffman stand on, say, teaching creationism in schools and posting the Ten Commandments in courtrooms.
A most intriguing question! Dominion theology, according to Wikipedia, is the belief:
… that society should be governed exclusively by the law of God as codified in the Bible, to the exclusion of secular law. The two main streams of Dominion Theology are Christian Reconstructionism and Kingdom now theology. Though these two differ greatly in their general theological orientation (the first is strongly Reformed and Neo-Calvinistic, the second is Charismatic), they share a postmillenial vision in which the kingdom of God will be established on Earth through political and (in some cases) even military means.
According to Wikipedia’s article on the funding of the Discovery Institute:
In 2005, the Washington Post reported, ‘Meyer said the institute accepts money from such wealthy conservatives as Howard Ahmanson Jr., who once said his goal is “the total integration of biblical law into our lives” …
Here’s Salam’s answer:
Now here was have some nuanced analysis! I like this idea. One could think of McDonnell [who won the governorship of Virginia] as the un-Romney. Romney felt he had to establish his social conservative bona fides in light of his pro-choice stance during his 1994 run for the U.S. Senate and his 2002 run for governor. McDonnell, in contrast, had a lengthy record as a committed social conservative.
[…]
I’m pretty sure Christie is opposed to teaching creationism and posting the Ten Commandments. I can’t say for Hoffman, though my guess is that he thinks local governments should decide.
Another question:
Do you think “teaching creationism and posting the Ten Commandments” are winning issues for Republicans nationally? Anyone who believes in creationism is ignorant and uneducated and most likely has a low opinion of education.
Salam’s answer: (1) I do not think that teaching creationism and posting the Ten Commandments are winning issues nationally.
(2) I do not think that anyone who believes in creationism is ignorant or uneducated. I know it’s hard to believe for some of us, but people who have different views are sometimes highly educated and well-informed. Though I don’t believe in creationism, I know a number of devout evangelicals who do. And I also know many very smart people who believe that there has been some kind of divine intervention involved in the emergence of the world’s flora and fauna.
To tell you the truth, I think that the fixation of these issues is mainly about status politics. And I can’t say I’m very interested in status politics.
What are “status politics”? We don’t know, but this book may be instructive: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement.
That’s all we could find in the Salam article about The Controversy. But what little we found is … well, thought-provoking.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
I didn’t read the whole article but I smell a bait-and-switch coming when he says that he doesn’t “believe in creationism.” I’m betting that he means that he does not believe that the earth is only 1000s of years old, but does doubt evolution and maybe common descent too. And favors using tax dollars to misrepresent evolution in public schools with a phony “critical analysis.”
If I missed anything that suggests otherwise, please let me know.
Frank J says: “If I missed anything that suggests otherwise, please let me know.”
To me, if someone dances around the issue and isn’t straightforward about supporting science and rejecting creationism, then I assume the worst. But I thought the biggest point in that article — the only point, really — was the distinction a questioner made between “religious conservatism” and opposition to abortion or gay marriage.
I don’t care what they believe in if they’re not trying to force it into schools in violation of the law.
Politicians as a class are not very far toward the right end of the bell curve. One of my Senators said that Osama bin Laden is loved through the Muslim world because he builds day care centers–fundamentalist Islam is after all renowned for its dedication to the right of women to work outside the home.
I do, have and will vote for people who believe that God created the earth in seven days 7000 years ago; if they agree with me on issues I think are more important.
That belief is nutty. It is not dangerous, if it is not authorized and promulgated by the State.
If you haven’t noticed, liberal Democrats run most things nowadays, and are finding that they can only push their ideas so far without running into popular resistance. A truly conservative government–which I do not believe this nation has EVER seen–will find the same thing.
Creationism is a LOCAL problem–school boards and such. A Senator or a Governor or a President who is a creationist has no power to force it to be taught in schools.
Gabriel Hanna: “Politicians as a class are not very far toward the right end of the bell curve.”
If the curve is on a left-to-right scale of “sales-driven” to “service-driven” I assume that all politicians are in the leftmost ~1% unless they demonstrate something extraodinary to the contrary. Sorry, politicians, campaign ads do not demonstrate squat. So your money is wasted on me.
Gabriel Hanna: “I do, have and will vote for people who believe that God created the earth in seven days 7000 years ago; if they agree with me on issues I think are more important.”
I would too, but only if they made it clear that they were Omphalos creationists, meaning that the believed the alternate prehistory “on faith” and conceded that the evidence does not support it. I knew at least one person like that, but he wasn’t a politician.
OTOH I would find it hard to vote for someone who admitted accepting evolution but advocated “academic freedom” or related “fairness” scam.
I would too, but only if they made it clear that they were Omphalos creationists, meaning that the believed the alternate prehistory “on faith” and conceded that the evidence does not support it.
If they aren’t on your school board, picking the curriculum; or in the state legislature, able to make laws on the curriculum-what business is it of yours what they believe? It only matters what they DO, and they can only DO what they have POWER to do.
Gabriel Hanna: “It only matters what they DO, and they can only DO what they have POWER to do.”
Agreed. But if they actually think the evidence favors a young earth or independent origin of “kinds” they will do something about it. Either they will jump at the chance to test such novel ideas (that hasn’t happened yet to my knowledge), or they will misinform students, and possibly themselves, by taking evidence and quotes out of context, defining terms to suit the argument, etc. And if they do mess with science education, I’m just as concerned if it is not in my district or and state.
But if they actually think the evidence favors a young earth or independent origin of “kinds” they will do something about it.
Not necessarily. Even if they do, they have to persuade enough other government officals to go along with it. That only happens in a place the bulk of people agree with that, like Louisiana.
Since we live in a democracy, you don’t get to appoint philosopher kings to prevent Louisianans from gutting their science education.
Why don’t we get government OUT of the education business, and then it’s not a problem. The government can PAY for it, but not do the actual educating. Parents with sense will send their kids to schools that teach science, and parents without, won’t; just like parents feed and clothe their children as they see fit. (My mom insisted on cutting my hair, though she had not the slightest idea how to do so.)
The less power the government has, the less you have to worry about the fools running it and the fools who elect those fools.
I’ve come across something disturbing over the past year – apparently, even teachers in blue states, such as MA where I live, are avoiding the subject of evolution even if no parent has yet complained, because they don’t want to take the risk. I do care about what an individual believes, as it informs the way he discharges his responsibilities, and contributes to the cultural climate, one way or another. If a parent knows that his or her local rep is a creationist, it can cause him to feel empowered, and lead to confrontation over educational policy.
Also, I refuse to vote for someone who looks forward to spending eternity watching me burn forever in a lake of fire. I’m funny that way.