News-Record.com

"To the first charge: It's just more evidence that Pitts, liberal minded on most social and political issues, is pretty darn bigoted when it comes to people's religious beliefs"

Is the geological age of the earth a religious matter?

No, and the Bible is silent on that question.

Pitts is right. Anything goes, baby!
You don't want the library to have a copy of "Mom and her Great Dane Max" you're an anti-intellectual snob. Who decides?

You assert that Palin was made to seem dumb because she believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. A literal interpretation includes working backwards from various dates mentioned in the Bible to conclude that the Earth was created 4,000 years ago, that the Earth was created in seven days, that Noah built a boat bigger than any man-made structure ever made, denying evolution and a whole host of myths that are at odds with physics, geology, biology, astronomy and chemistry.

It is not that one who takes a literal view of the Bible is to be labeled anti-intellectual because of her religion, it is that she is anti-intellectual, by definition, because such beliefs demand a rejection of science. It's not the religion. It's the science.

Doug:

Pitts is just the latest in a long line of liberals and assorted leftists who have come unhinged over Palin: Sarah Bernhardt (Palin would be raped by a gang of black men if she came to N.Y.); Charlie Rangel (She's "disabled"); Pamela Anderson (Palin "can suck it") just to name a few. The "open minded" progressives are quite scary when it gets right down to it and they tell us how they really feel.

The sad thing is that Rangel, et al. are not sort of fringe, liberal kooks; they are the democratic party's base. They are representative of a lot of people who vote for dems.

Parenthetically, you do a great job and do your very best to be fair, but I can't help but think that your colleagues in the press would make similar statements by anyone on the right about a democrat candidate "front page" news and tell us how the statements demonstrate just how closed minded and hateful those on the right are.

Regardless of what one thinks of Palin, or any candidate, I hope Americans will demand a higher level of discourse about these very important issues.

Best regards,

Paul Daniels

My apologies to the Sarah Bernhardts of the world, I meant Sandra Bernhard.

I'm sorry Paul, but I don't think Pamela Anderson gets to speak for liberals or the Democratic Party. I hardly think she's an example of your typical liberal voter. However, there is very good reason to be extremely upset about Palin. If she does believe the earth is 5000 years old and rejects science, it would be extraordinarily dangerous to have her as leader of the country. Basic scientific research (meaning research done with no specific goal or application in mind) is mostly funded by the government because the economic benefits of a specific research project are unsure and shared so private companies will rarely invest in it. It does, however, have a huge positive impact on economic growth. If we had a president who cut or eliminated these funds it would be extremely damaging for our health, economic competitiveness, national security, and our well-being in many other respects. On top of that, she doesn't seem to have even a basic grasp on most national issues, including energy which she is supposedly an "expert" on. All Americans should come unhinged at the mere chance that she could become president.

Dad, the idea that there is no "religious test" is, in practice, absurd. I knew many people in 2004 who disagreed with Bush on most issues but said "I have to vote for him because I'm a Christian." Does anyone actually think Obama would have gotten anywhere close to the Democratic nomination if he actually were a Muslim? The mere rumor that he is cost him a lot of votes in the primaries, and probably will cost him some in November. Some religious views Palin seems to have like the rejection of science and the belief that the Iraq war was a "mission from God" are personal beliefs that normally wouldn't matter. In our leader, however, they would be downright dangerous.

Thanks, Paul. I hope so, too.

Roch, there are no "dates" mentioned in the Bible. Not one.

There are references to the reigns of kings and the ages of individuals and certain historical events. Some people think it's possible to use some of these clues to make various calculations, even the age of the other. Personally, I think that's reading more into the text than is actually there, and possibly missing larger lessons. But religious faith rests on convictions of the heart and does not depend on conclusions drawn from scientific fact.

I don't know what Palin believes about the Bible. I find that many Christians who are labeled as literalists or fundamentalists, and may even regard themselves as such, actually rely on a considerable amount of interpretation to resolve what might appear to be conflicts between what they believe to be true and what science might insist isn't true.

I don't happen to think that science disproves the Bible; certainly not the essential truths of the Bible. Is it essential to the real meaning of the flood narrative whether two of every kind of animal actually boarded the ark? No. Does the Bible tell us the earth is 4,000 years old? I don't think it does. Why is that important to faith, anyway?

All that said, people are entitled to hold what religious beliefs they will. Isn't that what this country is all about? Unfortunately, that doesn't eliminate religious bigotry from left and right. Pitts' brand, from the left, belittles people who, from the standpoint of the sophistocates, are a little too child-like in their faith. (Almost always, the targets are Christians. People like Pitts are too politically correct, or afraid, to mock Muslims of similar "simple" faith.)

Again, I don't know what Palin believes. Whatever it is, it's a further stretch on the part of her critics to infer that she would oppose scientific endeavors if she were vice president. Rather than accept that criticism on faith, I would want to see the evidence.

"Again, I don't know what Palin believes."

OK, my bad. When you originally wrote that Palin "believes the Bible is literally true," I thought you meant that she believes the Bible is literally true.

I agree with Doug. The ancient guys (or gals) who transcribed the bible didn't have Carbon 14 dating etc and may have had different calenders, conceptions of time etc.. Add to this the pressure the populace was putting on the rabbis to approximate, in some manner, when exactly all this s--- began, that they did what most people would do, they made one up to get them off their backs.

What I originally wrote, Roch, is that Leonard Pitts says Palin believes the Bible is literally true. I am not assuming that Pitts is correct.

Leonard Pitts says Sarah Palin is dumb as a rock -- oops, sorry, anti-intellectual *Doug

Well! Ole racist Bell Curve Charlie appears to agree with Leonard on this anti-intellectual monkey Republican evolutionary business.

Charles Murray Is 'Deeply in Love' with Palin

Charles Murray, the social scientist and author of the (racially) controversial The Bell Curve gets the Deborah Solomon Q & A treatment in this coming Sunday's New York Times Magazine and its annual College issue. Murray talks a lot about doing away with B.A. degrees ("meaningless credential") and continues to claim that I.Q. is destiny. But then there is this zinger: What, then, does he make of John McCain ranking 894 in a class of 899 when he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy? He replies, "I like to think that the reason he ranked so slow is that he was out drinking beer, as opposed to just unable to learn stuff."

And what does he think of Sarah Palin? "I'm in love. Truly and deeply in love." But she attended five colleges in six years? "So what." Then he adds: "The last thing we need are more pointy-headed intellectuals runing the government."

Murray also claims that only 20% of kids are actually equipped for college, so they should get jobs. But what about high unemployment already? Well, the world needs "first-rate electricians." Solomon ends up accusing Murray of being "on the dole" himself -- "welfare for intellectuals" -- as a longtime thinker at the American Enterprise Institute.

"Leonard Pitts says Palin believes the Bible is literally true."

Not in the article you linked to. Elsewhere?

In the column I linked to, Pitts wrote:

"I'm reminded of how someone challenged me the other day on my contention that anti-intellectualism has overtaken this land. I mentioned by way of example Palin's Bible literalism, but really, there's so much more."

Am I misreading that, or does Pitts' reference to "Palin's Bible literalism" indicate that he thinks she believes the Bible is literally true?

No one doubts that one reason Palin was picked was to excite evangelicals and encourage them to vote for McCain. If they want people to vote for her because of her faith, it is perfectly legitimate to determine what it is she believes and how this will affect her policies. You can say the age of the earth shouldn't affect faith, but to many people it does. It leads people to try to force the teaching of young earth creationism in science classes even though those ideas are not obtained through scientific method.

"Almost always, the targets are Christians. People like Pitts are too politically correct, or afraid, to mock Muslims of similar 'simple" faith.'"

Well of course. It's accepted that certain beliefs by some radical Muslims are dangerous. Does he need write a column about that? It's perfectly fine, and I believe accurate, to point out what is not by any means agreed upon: that some Christians hold beliefs that are dangerous as well. He's also talking about a VP candidate. If a radical Muslim were running for that office, or if any held power in the government, he would probably criticize their views too.

Andrew:

Anderson doesn't speak for dems, but you
are ok with the Bernhart, et. al. because they should be "unhinged?" Goodness!

The fact that Obama mentioned his "muslim faith" in an apparent Freudian slip may also have cost him some votes (ya think?).

If you don't believe that research funding is doled out on a political basis right now, you are terribly naive. Just see what happens if you try to dispute global warming, the Kinsey report, etc.

If Pitts' writings are any indication of the views he believes are dangerous, it is safe to say that he is much more concerned about evangelical Christians than he is about muslim terrorists.

I wasn't referring to the Osama bin Laden ilk of Muslims whose religious beliefs are dangerous but to the ordinary peaceful Muslims who might believe literally the claims of the Quran (the virgin birth of Jesus, for example).

Palin should be evaluated according to what she does or proposes, not what she believes. If she believes in creationism (however one wants to define that), so what? If she would require the teaching of creationism in public school classrooms, that's a different matter.

Paul, I didn't mention Bernhart because I don't know who she is, so I won't say I am or I'm not ok with her. But I should rephrase and say that people should be angry and horrified that Palin may possibly one day be president

As for research funding, trust me, I know a lot about that as I'm studying for a master's in science and technology policy. Over the last few weeks I've read dozens of articles about research funding. All government funding issues are political to a certain degree because the funds are allocated by Congress. People not respecting those who dispute global warming do so however because the evidence is so slanted in one direction. There's a group of scientists who don't believe in plate tectonics but think the earth is expanding. They don't get many research dollars for the same reason. The social sciences community actuality is very critical of the Kinsey report because of his sometimes unscientific methods.

"If she would require the teaching of creationism in public school classrooms, that's a different matter."

She is on record pushing for this.

If that's the case, I oppose that as a matter of public policy separate from any public official's personal religious beliefs.

Kids can learn the Genesis account at home or in church or synagogue. I happen to believe they should.

Andrew,

Show me the record she is on pushing for Creationism to be taught in schools.

Andrew,

perhaps you have heard of this organization...

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html

Try it you'll like it.

PS
Dont believe everything you hear behind the ivy curtain of higher edu-macationism

Doug, you're right, Pitts says Palin takes a literal view of the Bible.

Thanks, Mick.

Here's the info pertinent to this issue from factcheck.org. It puts Pitts' assertions about Palin's "anti-intellectualism in a different light. Perhaps he should have read this first:

On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.

In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alternatives to evolution, Palin replied:

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.

After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years.

Doug,
Did I miss something on the book scam? This is what factcheck.org has on the library subject.
"As we’ve noted, Palin did not attempt to ban any library books. We don’t know if Emmons’ resistance to Palin’s questions about possible censorship had anything to do with Emmons’ firing. And we have no idea if the protests had any impact on Palin at all. There simply isn’t any evidence that we can find either way. Palin did re-hire Emmons the following day, saying that she now felt she had the librarian’s backing. Emmons continued to serve as librarian until August 1999, when the Chicago Tribune reports that she resigned."

Does Pitts know something that they don't, or are the facts just troubling?

Doug Wrote: "Palin should be evaluated according to what she does or proposes, not what she believes."

Not Obama though:

http://blog.news-record.com/staff/offtherecord/archives/2008/03/in_brief_1.shtml

Barry,

I can't answer those questions. Here's the snopes.com version, which is similar:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bannedbooks.asp

Roch, well you sure got me on that one. Is that the biggest slam on Obama I've made? I wish the guy would tick me off more.

The facts are definitely troubling:

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/09/12/Palin_book_banning.html?cxntlid=inform_artr

"Taylor Griffin, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, said Thursday that Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, on three occasions how she would react to attempts at banning books. He said the questions, in the fall of 1996, were hypothetical and entirely appropriate. He said a patron had asked the library to remove a title the year before and the mayor wanted to understand how such disputes were handled."

Oh, yeah. Hypothetical. Just like the letter Palin sent to the librarian firing her was merely a test of the librarian's loyalty.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Doug, you're right, Pitts says Palin takes a literal view of the Bible.* Bible source

Great! Now which Bible? The Catholic Bible, The Mormon Bible, King James reverse Jewish Bible, Henry the 8 th get the Pope Bible, 7 th day Adventist Bible, The Masonic Bible, In fact, did you know that there are over 1500 difference Bibles by various faiths claiming to be followers of Christ?

Surely you religious Palin fools can understand why Religious wars get started with that many difference opinions of God.

"Roch, well you sure got me on that one. Is that the biggest slam on Obama I've made?" -- Doug

It's not about the ferocity of your opinions on Obama, it's about the inconsistency--that you would previously find it necessary for Obama to explain his beliefs in relation to his church, but here say that Palin shouldn't be evaluated on her beliefs.

"If she would require the teaching of creationism in public school classrooms, that's a different matter."

She is on record pushing for this.

***********

This is simply not true - this is a red herring being pushed by Obama supporters, who want to paint Palin as some sort of anti-intellectual religious zealot.

As Doug has posted, Palin has not pushed creationism during her tenure as Alaska governor. She hasn't.

Also -- and this is important -- curriculum decisions are made by the states, not the federal government. There is no such thing as a federal science curriculum that is taught in the public schools. This whole "controversy" is simply an invention to smear Sarah Palin.

I'll say this: Palin really has the left scared, because they sure do seem to talk about her a lot.

Thanks for bringing up factcheck.org, Mick. You'll find they have to correct McCain much more than Obama. It's not even close.

"Dont believe everything you hear behind the ivy curtain of higher edu-macationism." It'd be impossible. I've actually been very pleased so far at the huge diversity of viewpoints I've been shown and how hard I've been pushed to draw my own conclusions. Where I am now, parroting someone else's opinion without specific reasons to explain my agreement would more or less guarantee failure. Oh, and it's not and ivy league school (though there is a building on campus called Ivory Tower, which I think is hilarious).

It's actually a little too complicated for an exact parallel, Roch.

The comment I made in the post you linked to wasn't about Obama's beliefs. It was about his associations.

Associating with people or organizations is an action, not a belief.

If someone associated with racists, even if that person wasn't a racist himself, it would raise questions about judgment and influence.

Ok, just saying, she has "supported" teaching it if she hasn't "pushed" for it. The direct quote is "I am a proponent for teaching both [creationism and evolution]." Palin has the left scared because of her frightening level of incompetence and her pattern of Cheney-like abuse of power. She is, however, the least popular of the four candidates on the two tickets according to recent polling, so I think people are starting to see this. Her fall has actually been quite dramatic.

I will correct myself about factcheck.org. I hadn't been on in a few days until just now. Last week it seemed all the articles were criticizing McCain, and so far this week it seems they're all criticizing Obama.

Would it be reasonable to guess that Palin approval ratings are declining both because of accurate exposure of some of her deficiencies and inaccurate reporting/lies/distortions about her background?

To the extent the latter factor accounts for some of the decline, corrections may lead to a partial recovery in her popularity.

Her debate with Biden may help solidify opinions about her.

Yeah, sure, Doug. For Palin, her religious beliefs that are off limits, but for Obama, his associations with his church's congregation is fair game. So, I guess we can talk about Palin's religion as long as we do it in terms of her association with her church's congregation. We can't say, "She believes..." but we can say, "She goes to a church where the congregations believes..." Do I have that right?

The issue is not belief per se but implementation of beliefs. A subtle distinction, I understand.

A foundational principle of our nation is religious toleration. People can believe how they will; no religious tests for holding public office.

That's idealistic but still important, I think.

On a more personal level, I don't think people should be called stupid on account of their religious beliefs.

"I don't think people should be called stupid on account of their religious beliefs."

Which brings us full circle to your original mistake. It's not her religious beliefs, it's her views of science -- Oh, wait, Let me try that again to conform with your Obama critique: As you wanted Obama to explain the extent to which he agrees with the beliefs of his congegation, it is fair to ask Palin to explain the extent to which she agrees with the anti-science beliefs of her church.

Andrew,

I wasnt correcting McCain or Obama... I was correcting you. About those diverse opinions your hearing... everything is relative. Most likely the political "center" of your current world is actually somewhat left of "real life center". But its all good. Good luck.

Ok, just saying, she has "supported" teaching it if she hasn't "pushed" for it. The direct quote is "I am a proponent for teaching both [creationism and evolution]."

***********
This is a misleading half-truth. Here's the rest of the story, as Doug himself mentions:

"The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years."

Kind of casts a whole different light on things, doesn't it? This "Palin supports creationism" is just another boogeyman the left is throwing out there to discredit Gov. Palin.

Ok, just saying, she has "supported" teaching it if she hasn't "pushed" for it. The direct quote is "I am a proponent for teaching both [creationism and evolution]."

***********
This is a misleading half-truth. Here's the rest of the story, as Doug himself mentions:

"The Associated Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them. ... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined, "Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has covered Alaska for 30 years."

Kind of casts a whole different light on things, doesn't it? This "Palin supports creationism" is just another boogeyman the left is throwing out there to discredit Gov. Palin.

Sorry about the double post.

The hostility towards Palin, and Christianity in general misses some very important points (as blind hostility often does): As my agnostic (as near as I could tell) OT professor said in class one day, one cannot consider oneself well-read in western civilization if one has never read the Bible.

The Bible is the seminal piece of literature in western civilization, and to understand western thought and our institutions etc., one must be familiar with the text. Regardless of whether you choose to believe what is in the Bible, we should all know what it says.

Doug:

You wrote --
(Almost always, the targets are Christians. People like Pitts are too politically correct, or afraid, to mock Muslims of similar "simple" faith.)

Really?

You don't think people like Pitts would mock Muslim politicians with extremely simple religious beliefs if they could get elected to high office in this country? You say in this thread that there's no "religious test" in this country for elective office -- but I'd assert that that's only technically true. If the electorate insists that you be Judeo/Christian or refuse to vote for you or work against you, we don't need a religious test. We all automatically fail.