Bill Brady, Creationist, for Governor of Illinois

OUR last report on the Illinois governor’s race was here: Creationism & the Illinois Governor’s Race, in which we wrote about the candidates’ answers to this Associated Press question: “Do you accept the theory of evolution? Please explain.”

Six of the seven candidates seeking the Republican nomination gave what we judged to be tolerable responses. But the seventh was Bill Brady, who said: “I accept the theory of creation, as I was taught, and believe the world has continued to evolve since.”

Today we found an article the Chicago Tribune devoted exclusively to this Brady fellow. We herewith present some excerpts from Illinois State Sen. Bill Brady runs for the GOP nomination for governor. The bold font was added by us:

Brady, a Roman Catholic and Republican who has spent years constructing a record in the General Assembly around his conservative beliefs, now needs people to find him.

Okay, we found him. Now what?

“To lead, you have to have values,” Brady said in an interview later that morning as he downed scrambled eggs, toast and decaffeinated coffee at the local Red Wheel Family Restaurant. He made the stop to shake hands with folks from a region of corn and soybean fields dotted with Brady billboards and signs sporting pro-gun slogans along Interstate Highway 57.

Your Curmudgeon has no problem with pro-gun candidates. But what other values does Brady have? Let’s read on:

The pitch for values is an easy one to make in a state stung by the impeachment and indictment of former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Illinois’ culture of what Brady called “insider corruption” is one of two big problems he said he would try to end as governor. The other is the state’s habit of spending beyond its means.

So far, so good. What else?

[Brady] has become a reliable vote [in the state legislature] opposing taxes and supporting business propositions. “It’s what I know,” he said.

Up to this point he sounds like someone your Curmudgeon could support. However, in addition to those traditional Republican positions, this guy comes with all the theocratic baggage that we oppose. Brace yourself:

Brady, who used to play poker with President Barack Obama when they both served in the Illinois Senate, opposes proposals for a land-based casino in Chicago and would try to stop video poker from expanding beyond existing machines in January 2011 if he becomes governor.

He’s against gambling, as if that were any of his or the state’s concern. We continue:

He takes conservative stances on social issues.

Oh yeah, here it comes:

Brady is not for abortions in cases of rape and incest nor when just the health of the mother is at risk. The only time he said an abortion should be permitted is if the mother’s life is at stake.

There’s more:

He opposes gay marriage and civil unions. He voted against the state law passed in 2005 that banned discrimination against gays and lesbians in matters of housing and employment.

Those are not issues your Curmudgeon worries about, but we note that Brady’s position is hard core indeed. Be careful what you do with your private parts if this guy gets elected.

Okay, this next item is the one you’ve been waiting for:

On education, he supports allowing local school boards to teach creationism. Brady wants to eliminate the quasi-independent State Board of Education or, avoiding a constitutional fight, limit it to an advisory role in favor of a down-sized agency answering to the governor.

We’ll skip all the rest. Brady has the traditional Republican positions, and then he has the new issues that have recently oozed into the GOP. It’s all due to Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy, which polluted the party with all the pious nonsense that was once spouted mostly by democrat leaders like the babbling creationist blowhard, William Jennings Bryan.

So there you are. Illinois voters have the opportunity to elect a governor who will carefully control their bedrooms and their card games, and who will indoctrinate the kiddies with the TRVTH about the historical reality of Noah’s Ark.

Copyright © 2010. 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

20 responses to “Bill Brady, Creationist, for Governor of Illinois

  1. Interesting that he’s a Roman Catholic. Creationism is considered heretical last I checked.

  2. Pope John Paul II made a statement endorsing evolution, but did not go anywhere near declaring creationism heretical.

    Anyway, there are a large number of RCs who defy the official church over a wide range of issues.

  3. TomS noted

    Anyway, there are a large number of RCs who defy the official church over a wide range of issues.

    Indeed — as one finds in Belfast, with its queues of customers for condoms who have nipped over from the Republic to make the purchase.

  4. TomS: “Pope John Paul II made a statement endorsing evolution, but did not go anywhere near declaring creationism heretical.”

    I don’t think he would have declared the honest belief of any of the mutually contradictory “literal” accounts of Genesis any more heretical than the honest belief that reindeer fly. But I did detect what may be a subtle hint that he considered the deliberate antics of anti-evolution activists less than admirable. When he referred to the evidence for evolution as “convergence, neither sought nor fabricated,” it must have crossed his mind that anti-evolution activists do nothing but seek and fabricate evidence. And even with that cheating, they have been unable to achieve convergence on any specific alternate account, let alone a theory.

  5. Curmudgeon: “Those are not issues your Curmudgeon worries about, but we note that Brady’s position is hard core indeed. Be careful what you do with your private parts if this guy gets elected.”

    Not everyone who holds that set of positions objects to evolution (though probably 90% do), but those positions strongly indicate that their objection to evolution has nothing to do with the evidence.

  6. Gabriel Hanna

    To say that God created the universe and that it evolved since is not quite the same thing as being a “creationist”. (He does seem to be a creationist sympathizer and fellow traveler, I agree).

    And being opposed to gay marriage or applying the housing laws to gays and lesbians is not the same as “wanting to control what people do in the bedroom”. Granted I can’t look into his soul and know he doesn’t really want to do that, but that isn’t what he’s said.

    I oppose applying Title IX to the sciences–there’s been talk of that lately, by people like Donna Shalala–but that doesn’t imply I think women shouldn’t be scientists, or that I think it’s okay to discriminate against them.

    The “anti-discrimination” laws, in practice, go a lot further than merely making discrimination illegal. Our Curmudgeon, I thought, knew this.

  7. Gabriel Hanna says:

    The “anti-discrimination” laws, in practice, go a lot further than merely making discrimination illegal. Our Curmudgeon, I thought, knew this.

    Yes, I’ve always known it. But once some group proposes such a law, it becomes a minefield to even discuss the issue. So I usually avoid the whole business. I’ve got enough controversial topics on my plate.

  8. Gabriel Hanna: “To say that God created the universe and that it evolved since is not quite the same thing as being a “creationist”. (He does seem to be a creationist sympathizer and fellow traveler, I agree).”

    He has apparently not read much material for or against evolution, and just says what feels good. If he does read more, he’ll either drop the “evolved since” and become a full-blown creationist, or he’ll realize that creationism is bunk. If the latter, he might not necessarily admit it, because that would lose votes among the group most likely to vote for him. A “diplomatic” compromise would be to simply avoid stating his belief regarding evolution and to still advocate teaching “both sides.” Which is what many people do who accept evolution but do not understand that “both sides” really means “license to misrepresent evolution” (and yes, I was one of those years ago).

  9. In regards to the heresy thing, as it was explained to me, creationism is skirting the line with heresy for Roman Catholicism in two ways. The first is that it would be in contradiction with Catholic teaching. It’s difficult since the Papacy hasn’t fully said that Genesis isn’t a news report, but the church’s stance is pretty anti-creationism. The second is that creationism has the effect of raising the Bible to or above God and the author (being able to be without error in reading it) being on par with God. So obviously, considering yourself to be God would be heresy and hence Creationism is heresy. Keep in mind that this was explained to me by a Jesuit and just about anything not Catholic was heresy to him, but it is an argument I agree with.

  10. Ken Miller needs to give that fella a talking-to. Supporting “equal time” for creationism in public schools flies in the face of the Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision in 1987.

    Even though evolution is taught like any other scientific subject in Catholic high schools and colleges, I do wish the Church would take a stronger pro-evolution stance. Acceptance of evolution is high among Catholics compared to other Christians, but well below what it should be…very frustrating.

  11. I’m not sure about the creationism thing. I’m a hard core science guy – but I think Brady’s statement above isnt unreasonable – some type of creation happened via God, and then evolution proceeded from there. This doesnt really conflict with science necessarily… there was some type of creation…. God developed or not, which led to evolution.

    And Video Poker certainly isnt a religious issue necessarily – its about controlled gambling vs uncontrolled. I think liberals certainly are against expansion of gambling also.

    All that being said – I’ll vote for Quinn. He’s a good man, although surrounded by idiots in the legislature.

  12. Just after the Pope condoned evolution, I found a Catholic website that was selling Creationist books. I emailed them and asked them why they were still selling those books now that the Pope said evolution was OK.

    They responded – I kid you not! – with “We disagree with the Pope on this issue.”

    You know… there’s a name for a Christian who disagrees with the Pope. It’s called Protestant.

    😀

  13. Help! Curmy! Save us from thesenator!

  14. thesenator is on a mission. But not here.

  15. The actual existence of Noah’s Ark is a factual and historical reality, as is the world-wide, not just regional ones, Flood. [Massive editorial deletion. This remnant is preserved for historical purposes only.]

  16. So sadly typical of atheists and evolutionists—to flee from the facts and reality by wiping out on your site all my hours of work to produce these factual Comments. The definition of mental illness is a person’s refusal to deal with fact and reality. And our Bible states that, “The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God'”. Fortunately, I have printed and electronically saved all my work—and saved your irrational reponse. I can now send it all to my 300 national press and media friends at The Washington Post and NYT and CNN and FOX, etc., etc. to show them how irrational ideological the “evolutionists” are. Which was NOT my original purpose. But I have learned how much that people today hate the truth.

    [We allowed this one to stand, to illustrate what we’re dealing with.]

  17. Wow, that would really be something if he got us national attention, huh? Will Fox news show this as being another example of “Expelled”? Such a shame you wiped out “all my hours of work”!

  18. Maybe I’ll be interviewed by Megyn Kelly.

  19. The “Theory” of evolution is taught as a scientific fact, and Creation should be a contender for theory. Thinking individuals and scientists are able to observe, take notes, and create or agree with theories whether others espouse them or not. Please consider the evidence (as in the case of Noah’s ark), and really dig deep before making judgment calls about another person’s right to opinion and laughing at an unpopular stance. [Deletion]

    The theory of evolution is largely unsupported in the fossil record, which is the best thing we have for evidence. [Deletion.] There is more evidence of the fabled global disaster than there is of evolution (with no known transitional animals between our supposed lung fish ancestors and modern day humans). [Deletion.] If you go back far enough in evolution, there has to be a source for DNA. Martians? God? Matter is neither created or destroyed in our system of life — Observable at the subatomic level. That is a scientific law taught in schools. Where did the DNA come from? You are a product of the DNA within every cell. There is hope. Enjoy it!