Without integrity or shame
Despite pretensions to high moral values, the xian right regularly deploys arguments and rhetorical strategies misappropriated from their opponents in the reality-based community. They have no right to these arguments because they disagree with the premises, something that they apparently lack the integrity to recognize. This brazen lack of authenticity highlights how shallow and inadequate their moral character really is.
One of the most prominent recent instances was in the Dover intelligent design trial. The school board and its expert witnesses regularly denied what was evident to all: that creationism was the parent of intelligent design, which was conceived entirely to circumvent the law and get a certain brand of religion introduced in the schools. Yet they wrapped up their dogmatism in scientific rhetoric as if their goal were the advancement of science and the spirit of open inquiry.
Testimony and evidence in the trial proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the whole ID movement was a trojan horse, and the judge in the case, to his great credit, called them on this bullshit, attempting, apparently unsuccessfully, to shame them for their lies. But the lies and the bullshit continue to fly out of their asses.
Red State Rabble discusses the amusing case of creationists criticizing the Dover decision for violating separation of church and state.
Now we have a group called the Christian Educators Association International decrying the Dover ruling that teaching intelligent design is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of church and state.And PZ Myers very nicely dissects a fishy column in the New York Times in which an intelligent design creationist criticizes liberals for their recent opportunistic embrace of religion.
"If the educational community had held this position earlier in our culture, we might still be teaching students that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the Earth," asserts Finn Laursen, executive director of the group.
You have to love that.
In 1600, Giordano Bruno was burnt at the stake by a Medieval Church that convicted him as a heretic for daring to assert that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Today, the theocratic heirs to that decision feel absolutely free to say that resistance to replacing science with their peculiar brand of religion in the classroom endangers science education.
It is definitely worth reading the rest of Meyers analysis. He is in rare form here.
You know, I agree up to this point. I think it's an awful mistake for the Democrats to ramp up their religiosity in an attempt to be Republicans Lite. It's not going to work as an electoral strategy, and it's going to corrupt our government yet more. We don't need any more bible-thumpers in office.
But here's the weird thing: it's written by Joseph Loconte, religious apologist and wingnut conservative of the Heritage Foundation, mouthpiece for the Religious Right and Intelligent Design creationist. While he's piously deploring the intrusion of religion into politics in an op-ed, in his day job he's the perfect representative of the theocratic wing of the Republican party. This is the same guy who previously said, "The positions of the religious left and secularists on crucial questions seem indistinguishable, and that hurts them politically." So now he's trying to argue that the positions of the left and the religious right on crucial questions seem indistinguishable, and that hurts them politically...