"... The pure spirit is the pure lie ... As long as the priest is considered a higher type of man—this professional negator, slanderer, and poisoner of life—there is no answer to the question: what is truth? For truth has been stood on its head when the conscious advocate of nothingness and negation is accepted as the representative of "truth" ..."(Nietzsche, from the Anti-christ)
McCain's choice of Ms. Palin does little to advance the cause of secularism, and religious-free science for that matter. At the same time, Ms. Palin's qualifications should be addressed in context; compared to a Beltway pro. and papist like Biden (not to say his pious boss, BO), she doesn't offend that much. Obama has sided with evangelicals on numerous occasions, and who can forget the Wright fiasco--which is to say, Americans now have a choice between two rival mafia factions, both with ties to religion. Philosophy, schmilosophy: the Dempublican par-tay has nothing to do with the principles of Madison, Jefferson & Co. (go with DFV). Here's one Darwinian's reflections on Palinology:
[Sarah Palin] thinks that creationism should be taught along side evolution in school… that in my book disqualifies her from my personal vote. This shows a lack of critical thinking on her part, as it is clear in the article she does not understand what a scientific theory is.
Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night’s televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, “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.”
The usual conservative appeasement. Given the creationist/ID hype, as well as Palin's pro-life stance and religious comments, it's fairly obvious that McCain decided to pick someone who would appeal to the
Yet that hardly implies the superiority of the DNCocrat gangsters and Obamaites: when you hear some east coast liberal pundit-stein yap something like "How Closely Was Palin Vetted?" reach for a luger. Vet this.
One other point (directed to sentimental, liberal xtians): if X insists a omnipotent, monotheist God exists, X must agree that his God controls natural phenomena in some mysterious fashion (even say, a "Gustav"); in effect, logic requires it. Omnipotence entails, like, infinite power, knowledge and responsibility. If believer or theologian X denies that omnipotence, or suggests pantheism, or manichaeism, or some other ism as explanation, he in effect denies his own putative God His godliness: what sort of God can't see into the future for one, or prevent horrible natural or human disasters? (as Ivan Karamazov observed, in rather sublime section of Dostoyevsky's Bros. K).
Thus, anyone who attends a xtian, jewish, or muslim church, by implication upholds Design (tho' the spooky catholics have some subtle tricks to circumvent the problems with the argument), and he at least implicitly affirms other theological arguments related to causality. The fundies themselves realize that basic categorical point (ie their sunday school raindancing, or earthquake prayers, "the heavens reveal His handiwork," etc etc.). Any real Zeus-God would control tectonic plates--which is to say, any such Deity would needs be a murderous fiend, and so safe bet the noun "God" doesn't refer to some actual Being, but to a human-created concept, belief in which might prove useful, etc etc....)