Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge So you think that going paperless is green...

I think that's a relatively new thing, though. Go back thirty, forty years and we were significantly less religious, at least in matters of public policy. I think that in the 1960s, the notion that the house committee on science should have members who believed in young-earth creationism would have seemed quite strange.

A lot of the anti-intellectualism we see in American society traces, I think, to the deliberate, systematic efforts of the fundamentalist religious right to take control of the Republican party, beginning in the 1980s.

There was a time, within my lifetime, that the Republicans were the rationalist party. It was a Democratic president, John F. Kennedy, to dream of putting a man on the moon, but the engineers and scientists who actually made it happen were pretty much all Republican. The Republicans used to be the pragmatists, the rationalists, the guys who got things done.

I started personally noticing a change around the time of that modern-day prophet of modern Republicanism, Ronald Reagan (peace be unto him). The religious right started infiltrating the Republican party from the ground up in an attempt to make it into the party of God, and today, what was once the rationalist party has become the party of voodoo economics, creation "science," fairies, and pixie dust. It's hard to imagine a more anti-intellectual bunch than the Tea Partiers.

And as that change has happened, we've become less and less the world's technological and scientific leader. Funding for science has declined, the amount of basic research has dwindled, and today a lot of the world's most important science is being done elsewhere. In a post-industrial world, that bodes ill for our continued leadership, I think.

There's a comedy skit I saw some years back--might have been Saturday Night Live, I don't remember--with the premier of China addressing the Politburo. He was saying something along the lines of "Comrades, we wish to become the world's leading superpower, but I don't know how we're going to do it. The Americans have a hundred-year head start on us in science and technology. They have the wealthiest economy in the world, the brightest researchers, every year they spend more than we do on scientific and technological innovation, they...what's that you say? They just quit? Awesome!"

Ludittes have always been with us. It is wishful thinking to believe some of them will not end up in Congress, but putting one on the science committee is idiotic.

Congressman Broun's statements are appalling. It is even more appalling that he has a degree in Chemistry and is an M.D.! I have to wonder if he still uses leaches to bleed his patients to rid them of the bad humors that are afflicting them.

That said, he still has a right to express his beliefs and I don't think we would want it any other way. Any constitutional amendment, law, rule, etc. that would place limits on his right to express his beliefs would cut the other way equally well should Broun and his ilk come into ascendency. It is our duty as citizens to express our opinions with equal vociferousness and to vote to assure he and his views remain on the fringe of public opinion and congressional power. In other words, vote Broun and the idiots that placed him on the science advisory committee out of office!

There is one bright side to Broun being in congress. As long as he is there he is unlikely to have time to inflict himself on unsuspecting patients.

That may apply to Broun, but there are many substitutes. It's a business, after all. Personally, I wouldn't want to have to feed the faithful who seem so readily inclined to reduce any issue to scripture 'basics', throwing common sense into the wind. I distinctly remember hearing an acquaintance almost triumphantly say that he bases his choice of a physician on the person's religiosity, NOT on his medical credentials. It's a good thing the Medical Boards think otherwise, allowing him to do so.

Religious activism has always existed in the US, but it has varied in extent en effectiveness. For instance, it's been said to have had a large effect on starting the Civil War. With increasing post-WWII affluence, it has regained influence since the times of the 'Silent Majority'. Coincidentally, there was a shift from fundamentally to fundamentalist religious activity.

And that's where my remark about democracy comes in. From being content with their existence and their role in society in a live and let live philosophy, religious activists seem to have 'emancipated' and become more vociferous, largely by using their democratic powers beyond 'just' voting. Some say it's simply a reaction to a loss of influence, and that may be true. Many of the issues involved certainly don't reflect the basic tenets of christianity, although you wouldn't get that impression from the smoke and brimstone smell frequently associated with them.


The actual US funding levels for science haven't so much declined, as has their annual growth. Increasing productivity and affluence elsewhere has stimulated existing research efforts, and now approach US levels. By default, that has an effect on (marketable) results. That's not necessarily bad for the US, but it will cut into its leadership position.

Interestingly, and possibly related to the ascendancy of the voodoo economics, creation "science," fairies, and pixie dust you mentioned, I noticed in a parallel development a marked decline in numbers of new US hard Sci-Fi novels (it's mostly British these days) and associated book store shelf space over the last decade or so. It appears to have been replaced by Fantasy subgenres featuring religion, magic and zombies etc. For a while that was also reflected in TV show offerings (and perhaps it still is, I don't exactly keep track). At the same time there has been a decreasing interest in many science based academic studies among US youth. I've been wondering if there's a link.

I am becoming less and less convinced that everyone has a right to express his beliefs. It's one thing to "express beliefs," it's quite another thing to write them into public law. By virtue of his position, his expression of his beliefs can reduce or curtail funding for basic science like evolutionary biology and medicine. By virtue of expressing their beliefs, many voters have put him into office.

The notion that everyone has a right to express their beliefs is kind of like the notion that everyone has the right to lobby the government for whatever laws they want; taken to its logical conclusion, it results in the tyranny of the many over the few. I don't care how fervently he believes in his "beliefs," there is no room in public policy for anything that is not based on evidence.

I'm not sure what the solution is. The government is constitutionally barred from establishing a religion or mixing religion with public policy, but if enough Fundamentalist lawmakers are voted into office, it doesn't matter--the government will become an instrument of their religious beliefs simply by them "expressing" those beliefs.

As an historian by training, I have a mild objection to the use here of the term "Luddite."

As per the New Oxford American Dictionary that shipped with my Mac, Luddites as historical figures were "...any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, esp. in cotton and woolen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16)."

From Smithsonian magazine:


From Wikipedia:


Given the way industrialization generally and the English textile industry in particular played out over time, one could argue that the Luddites were actually possessed of a keen ability to formulate accurate hypotheses on the basis of rational analysis of observed data.

Of course, in contemporary usage the term "Luddite" typically refers to a person opposed to new technology, but this is clearly not the same thing as a person opposed to the scientific method. One need look no farther than an Amish farm to appreciate the distinction.

It's definitely true that being opposed to technology is not the same thing as being opposed to science. In fairness, though, it's possible to be both a Luddite and also an anti-intellectual. It would seem the honorable Congressman in question is quite likely both.

Aaaaand the Republican hit parade keeps rolling.

Republican Candidate In Arkansas Says Parents Should Seek Death Penalty Against 'Rebellious Children.'

"A candidate for the Arkansas legislature, Charlie Fuqua, says children who don’t demonstrate “respect for parents” should be put to death, the Arkansas Times reports.

...Here’s the key passage from Fuqua’s 2012 book, “God’s Law: The Only Political Solution:" The maintenance of civil order in society rests on the foundation of family discipline. Therefore, a child who disrespects his parents must be permanently removed from society in a way that gives an example to all other children of the importance of respect for parents. The death penalty for rebellious children is not something to be taken lightly. The guidelines for administering the death penalty to rebellious children are given in Deut 21:18-21.

(...) Fuqua’s book previously came under scrutiny for advocating expelling all Muslims from the United States.

Extremists like Charlie Fuqua in no way represent the overwhelming majority of Christians. But like Jewish and Islamic extremists they garner so much attention from the media it appears they are, if not the majority, the most prominent voices speaking for the particular faith tradition. If the media were not so quick to pick up on Charlie and his ilk, it is likely his voice and political power would quickly wither away to inconsequence. So the solution to these extremists lies not in laws or rules but in us. Don't give them the attention they so desperately desire, tell your local media outlets you are tired of hearing about Charlie and his ilk, complain to their advertisers. Instead of Charlie's voice of extremism, speak out such that voices of reason are heard.

Darn! I guess that means me as well, doesn't it?

I'm not so sure that's true.

Extremism appeals to a lot of people. It offers comfort and structure for people who are frightened by change and offended by people who hold different beliefs than they do. It does not require media attention to thrive; extremists are often very effective at finding one another and at organizing through their own communications networks. (Think of all the various Web sites dedicated to all manner of religious and political extremism. Think of the fact that in the days before the Internet, white supremacist groups like the White Aryan Resistance had their own network of computer bulletin board systems.)

When the media focuses attention on people like this, it roots out the cancer and exposes it to the withering light of day. Extremism thrives in dark corners; I think that most people AREN'T extremists, so the more people who are aware of it, the harder it is to grow.

It is quite likely that many, perhaps even most, people who voted for Fuqua do not share his idea that children should be put to death for disrespecting their parents. When the media exposes these ideas, I think fewer people will vote for him.



It does.

But more important, it means that people who identify as conservative Christians but who don't share these ideas need to stand up against them, too.

In any community or subculture--doesn't matter of we are talking about evangelical Christians, model airplane hobbyists, or people involved in bondage--there is a tendency to see the world in terms of 'us' and 'them.' A downside of that tendency is that people become very reluctant to speak out against abusers and nutcases in the 'us' category. The Catholics have a lot of trouble speaking out against abusive priests who molest children; the Evangelicals have trouble speaking out against one of their own who makes it to public office and then talks about putting children to death.

These kinds of abusers end up being sheltered by the group they belong to. The most effective way to stop abusers is for their group to turn against them. Human nature makes that hard to do; it's always much easier to look the other way when a person you identify as part of your 'us' group does evil.

There's a great book about this called "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil" by Philip Zimbardo, the researcher who did the infamous Stanford prison experiment.

The idea of in-groups becoming places that shield evildoers is something I've been spending a lot of time thinking about lately, when a friend of mine was sexually assaulted in the BDSM community (trigger alert: rape) and the community closed ranks behind the perpetrator. (As a result of the blog post I wrote about this event, my friend was recently interviewed on a major network TV show about the assault.)

The exact same sociological and psychological factors that caused the community to shield her attacker also cause the evangelical Christian movement to protect extremists like Fuqua.

Another friend of mine and I have been working on a project aimed at helping to educate people how to stand up against evildoers in their communities. He wrote an essay called We All Need Mirrors about the responsibility that we all have--every one of us, as individuals--to stand up against wrongdoing on any level within our own communities. He and I are also working on building an education Web site based on his followup to that essay, The Fix Is In, which is a how-to guide for empowering people to DO that standing up.

So on one level, you're right, people of reason need to stand up against unreason. But more importantly, people within any sort of community need to stand up against members of their own community who do wrong.

When people who are not Evangelicals complain about Fuqua, it's easy to deflect those criticisms; the Evangelical Christian movement already sees us as The Enemy, tools of Satan amassing an army against them. However, when Evangelicals stand up against him, now there is no place for him to hide; he can no longer say that it's just the enemy trying to tear him down.