Tuesday, April 26, 2005

the religious right and a balanced view of the world

is there a more disturbing bunch? i've yet to hear one say anything that wasn't laced with absurdity and rhetoric. at what point does a resonably intelligent child, who hasn't been brain-washed by parents abandon their own sense of self discovery and fall in line, like sheep, to the christian conservative pulpit? this 'proud' group is responsible, believe it or not, for public schools shying away from teaching evolution and science museums rejecting scientifically sound documentaries that may offend christian fundamentalists. i quote:

"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

these people aren't happy with anything that doesn't agree with the bible. the big bang, evolution, -very rational-

yes, sure. the earth was physically made in six days (gotta need that day off after all that) and is only 4,000 years old.

i'm sorry. i'm from a different country (england) i thought that this country (america) was founded by those that desired to keep church and state separate. seems that mr. frist and his cohorts would have us believe otherwise and urge the present 'faith-based" administration to abandon all checks and balances, turning the country's back on decades of first amendment law and civil rights protections. did i hear anyone say women's rights?

it's 2005. effective birth-control and aids prevention isn't viewed with the compassionate realism that's needed. these problems aren't going away, no matter how much abstinence the conservatives preach from their safe vantage points. this is, quite frankly, incredible.

the american media would much rather focus on a new pope and a roman catholic church that was quick to condemn the removal of terry schiavo's feeding tube, but stopped short of condemning the war in iraq when g.w. went over to kiss a hand. how many more hundreds of innocent civilian iraqis are going to die before this country and those that put george back in office has had enough of american lives lost. because if i want an update on the war in iraq from any of the major networks, it's the american dead that take top billing. each day this ugly tally is updated. how about one for the iraqis alongside or underneath, or don't we care about them?

No comments: