Ever since the US Presidential election cycle in 2008, we’ve been keeping track of who is and who isn’t a creationist. See Which 2012 Presidential Challengers Are Creationists?, and before that McCain’s Possible VP Choices — Creationists?
Why do we bother? Perhaps it’s already too late, but we think it still matters whether the President of the United States is an idiot or a scoundrel, and we use creationism as our litmus test for evaluating them.
Of all the issues out there, why creationism? We’re aware of the importance of defense and economic issues, and we don’t have any problem sorting out the candidates with respect to those topics. Republicans are generally preferable. But not all of them.
Some Republicans seem to have merely memorized their speeches on those topics without having any genuine understanding. We need to know more. Are they honorable and intelligent, or are there merely glib? Single-issue voters don’t care, but we do. And it’s in a candidate’s answers to the less commonly asked issues where problems may be revealed.
We use creationism as a defining issue because, although no one cares if a President understands biology or geology or physics, we need a President with enough sense to consult scientists whenever necessary. If a President is a creationist, he thinks he knows as much as all the scientists out there; and in today’s world that’s exceedingly dangerous. The problem goes far beyond science — if a President truly is a creationist, his mental deficiencies will inevitably become manifest in other areas. Crazy people can’t be trusted.
If a candidate isn’t a creationist, then he should say so! We don’t like it when candidates play games with us. If a candidate conceals his position and babbles all kinds of focus-group tested slogans because he’s pandering for creationist votes, then he has a flawed character. Such people are unfit for high office (or any office).
That’s why we think it’s important to sniff out a candidate’s thinking on the creationism question. See our Open Letter to Republican Presidential Hopefuls.
In the Star-Ledger, one of the newspapers hosted at NJ.com, “the online home of Jersey’s 12 largest and most prominent newspapers,” we read Gov. Chris Christie unsure about teaching creationism in schools. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
While charming a town hall audience in Manalapan Wednesday, Gov. Chris Christie called on a woman who had an unusual question for him. She asked what he thought about creationism being taught in schools along with evolution.
We’ve been assuming that Christie is too competent and rational to be a creationist, and too honorable to lie about it to pick up a few votes from his party’s idiot faction. So although he’s probably not running for President this year, we’re delighted that the question was put to him. Let’s read on:
The governor paused and took a sip of water, quipping, “That’s a new one.”
Come on, Christie. Quit stalling! Let’s have a straight answer!
“I probably have little business getting myself involved in these kinds of questions,” Christie said, adding that local school boards “should be making those decisions about what curriculum is being taught in your schools.”
BEEP! Wrong answer. Christie would leave it up to local clown shows like the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania — the one that gave us Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Yeah, that’s how to handle it.
Good lord — the man’s an idiot! We thought Cristie was far better than the typical witch-hunting social values GOP candidate these days, but now it’s dawning on us that we were wrong. The article goes on about what other officials say in New Jersey, so if you care about that state, then click over there and read it all. But from our point of view, unless there’s some kind of absolutely clear statement that removes our suspicions, Christie is not acceptable as a presidential candidate.
A Cristie (or any creationist) candidacy would present your Curmudgeon with a ghastly choice. We think almost anything would be preferable to what we’ve got now, but could we survive an administration obsessed with the social-values agenda? Perhaps the more important question is: With its two political parties as they are now, can America survive at all?
Copyright © 2011. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.