Why politics and fundamentalist Christianity shouldn't mix
Here's a great example of why personal religious beliefs should be kept out of public policy debates: Illinois Congressman John Shimkus citing Genesis in support of his contention that global warming is nothing to worry about.
He's standing by his remarks, made in 2009, that everything will be fine because God promised He wouldn't destroy the Earth after Noah's flood.
The Illinois Republican running for the powerful perch atop the House Energy and Commerce Committee told POLITICO on Wednesday that his understanding of the Bible reaffirms his belief that government shouldn't be in the business of trying to address rising greenhouse gas emissions.
"I do believe in the Bible as the final word of God," Shimkus said. "And I do believe that God said the Earth would not be destroyed by a flood.
Truly bizarre. Even more astonishing is that many Americans undoubtedly feel it's perfectly OK to base vitally important national policy decisions on myths from a pre-scientific era.
Well, we're in for a rough couple of years in Congress if Republicans allow legislation to be based on weird religious beliefs rather than solid facts. Openly debating the science of climate change is one thing; sticking one's head in the sand and spouting scripture is wholly/holy different.
Like I said before, and surely will say again, "Religious values have no place in politics."
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
While it is obviously true that this particular congressman would do so, where is the evidence that republicans as a whole would "allow legislation to be based on weird religious beliefs rather than solid facts." ?
Should I assume that because Toomey, the senator from Delaware has expressed his appreciation of Marxism that democrats/liberals as a whole would allow legislation to be based on Marxist ideals?
tucson, you make a reasonable critique of my statement. An entire political party shouldn't be judged by the actions of its most far-out members. It'll be interesting to see, though, what sort of position Shimkus assumes in the freshly Republican House of Representatives, which will indeed reflect the values of the leadership.
Funny how big business interests seem to fall in line with his interpretation of the Bible.... Or is it that this senator has coopted the Bible for big business? That is a real sin.
After all, according to the Bible this world was given to us to take care of and, looking at the list of extinct species, I'd say we are doing a fair job screwing it up six ways to Sunday.
And our duty to appreciate the gifts the creator has given us is Biblical. So, it is also biblical for us to take responsibility for pollution, and not to say "God isn't going to destroy us - let's keep on abusing the planet!"
Rather, God does not like to be dissed.
I think you will see in the next two years a whole group of people who love the Bible and hate the corrupt use of it, the corrupt interpretation of it, emerge to reclaim the notion of personal responsibility and brotherhood, which is what the Bible is entirely about.
So, while I dislike what this fellow does with the Bible, I would not associate the Bible with him.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
While it is obviously true that this particular congressman would do so, where is the evidence that republicans as a whole would "allow legislation to be based on weird religious beliefs rather than solid facts." ?
Should I assume that because Toomey, the senator from Delaware has expressed his appreciation of Marxism that democrats/liberals as a whole would allow legislation to be based on Marxist ideals?
Posted by: tucson | November 13, 2010 at 10:02 PM
tucson, you make a reasonable critique of my statement. An entire political party shouldn't be judged by the actions of its most far-out members. It'll be interesting to see, though, what sort of position Shimkus assumes in the freshly Republican House of Representatives, which will indeed reflect the values of the leadership.
Posted by: Blogger Brian | November 13, 2010 at 11:53 PM
Funny how big business interests seem to fall in line with his interpretation of the Bible.... Or is it that this senator has coopted the Bible for big business? That is a real sin.
After all, according to the Bible this world was given to us to take care of and, looking at the list of extinct species, I'd say we are doing a fair job screwing it up six ways to Sunday.
And our duty to appreciate the gifts the creator has given us is Biblical. So, it is also biblical for us to take responsibility for pollution, and not to say "God isn't going to destroy us - let's keep on abusing the planet!"
Rather, God does not like to be dissed.
I think you will see in the next two years a whole group of people who love the Bible and hate the corrupt use of it, the corrupt interpretation of it, emerge to reclaim the notion of personal responsibility and brotherhood, which is what the Bible is entirely about.
So, while I dislike what this fellow does with the Bible, I would not associate the Bible with him.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | November 17, 2010 at 05:52 PM