RT @TWERadio: JPMorgan Chase & Washington's anti-capitalist impulse, plus Obama campaign rips Romney for his work at Bain Capital ht ...
Click to Print
Include Comments
Questions for evolving candidates
New York Times executive editor Bill Keller wants GOP presidential candidates to answer some of his gotcha questions concerning religion. Fair enough, and let’s have some candidates who favor evolution answer questions about their theology. Here are five:
- Woodrow Wilson argued, “Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice.” He meant that they must evolve, moving from their primitive starts toward higher, more sophisticated understandings. Do you think the U.S. Constitution is a Darwinian document? How should it evolve?
- Princeton professor Peter Singer, the leading animal rights theoretician, says, “All we are doing is catching up with Darwin. He showed in the 19th century that we are simply animals. Humans had imagined we were a separate part of Creation, that there was some magical line between Us and Them. Darwin’s theory undermined the foundations of that entire Western way of thinking.” What do you believe about the relationship between mankind and other species? What special role, if any, does man have? If you had to choose between saving a baby chimp and a baby human, which would you choose, and why?
- Do you agree with Darwin that “higher races” should and will become dominant over “lower ones?” If not, what in Darwinian thinking suggests that races do not compete with each other in struggle for survival of the fittest?
- In what ways is abortion, in that it kills millions who have below-average prospects in life, a good Darwinian way to improve humanity?
- What future developments do you hope for in human evolution, and how do you think genetic engineering could speed up the process?
And while we’re at it, here are two more I’d like Keller to answer:
- If a candidate believes that God (rather than an evolutionary process) created the world, what problems do you think flow from that?
- If by moving aggressively against “global warming” we hurt the poor, how much hurt should we allow?
Topic: Commentary, Election 2012
Keywords: Abortion, Darwinism, evolution, genetic engineering, global-warming, Politics, racism, Religion, Science, U.S. Constitution
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top53 Comments to “Questions for evolving candidates”
Odd that this man wasnt around to query candidate OBama about whether he believes in the teachings of Rev Jeremiah Wright.
Report comment to moderator
Why are Keller’s questions “gotcha questions”? Some few of them are about private religious beliefs that would have little impact on public life (e.g., are Mormons “real Christians” or not); and though I am no fan of Dominionism, I think he entirely misunderstands it (to my knowledge, it asserts that Christians should claim dominion over all aspects of life, not that “only Christians should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth”); but most of them are good questions about how the candidates’ personal beliefs would influence their public decisions in office.
* Is America a Christian nation and what does that mean?
* How would you (and have you) resolved conflicts between your faith and the law?
* Would you appoint qualified Muslims or atheists to the bench?
* What do you believe about evolution? Should it be taught in schools?
* Should teacher-led school prayer be allowed?
These are all good questions about matters currently in the public interest, and I’d like to see how candidates would respond.
By contrast, Olasky’s questions seem mostly gimmicky and mean-spirited to me. Maybe his point is simply that he sees Keller’s questions that way. I don’t.
A few of Olasky’s questions, though, are good and worth some answers.
1. Is the Constitution an “evolving” document? Good question, and I’d like to hear what candidates would say.
2. Stupid question. No politician (and very few people outside Princeton ethicists) is going to say “baby humans are no more important than baby chimps.” That you think they might reveals a profound misunderstanding and/or distrust on your part.
3. Stupid question. No one believes this, and no one would have any difficulty saying that it’s deplorable.
4. Loaded question of the very worst sort. Fair to ask whether they believe millions of abortions is a problem or not a problem, and if “a problem,” what would they do to address it? But quite unfair to imply that because they believe in evolution, they must therefore believe that abortion is a good way to eliminate “undesirable” people.
5. Interesting question, and though it is entirely hypothetical, I still think it worth asking to get at a politician’s view of human nature. But I would like to see it worded in a neutral way: “Do you support genetic research to combat disease?” Presumably everyone would say yes. Then, “Would you support research into genetic engineering that could modify or improve human facilities like intelligence, memory, or strength?” Put that way, it sounds like a silly X-Men sort of question. Maybe someone else can think of a better way to word it.
Report comment to moderator
The more I think about it, the more I’m surprised at Olasky’s approach here. Doesn’t he want to know what it means to Rick Perry that America is a Christian nation? Isn’t it in the public’s interest to know to what extent a candidate intends to consult the Bible in shaping public policy?
Aren’t those questions more valuable than “don’t you, as a dirty evolutionist, think that baby monkeys are just as important as baby humans?”
Report comment to moderator
1. How should it evolve?
Like it always has, through amendments, SCOTUS opinions, and changes of the statutory environment.
2. If you had to choose between saving a baby chimp and a baby human, which would you choose, and why?
The human baby, because it’s covered by CHIP. BTW, Marvin, if it were not for Democrats, we might not be able to save either! Regardless, we’ve got to stop subjecting chimps to invasive torture in the name of science. We don’t accord chimps personhood, but they have emotions similar to ours and a capacity to reason and communicate with us. They lack some of the critical traits of human personhood (i.e., capacity to defer gratification), but we don’t need to abuse them.
3. Do you agree with Darwin that “higher races” should and will become dominant over “lower ones?”
Evolution doesn’t care who should dominate. The genetic superiority of White people is a concept promoted by conservatives, not biologists. Darwin said that the instinct of sympathy is “the noblest part of our nature” — but then he never observed Teavangelicals.
4. In what ways is abortion, in that it kills millions who have below-average prospects in life, a good Darwinian way to improve humanity?
Voluntary sexual selection is a form of eugenics. Abortion further improves reproduction by enhancing the intentionality of child-rearing. Contrary to the implication of Marvin’s “gotcha,” abortion doesn’t prevent humans from passing on their genes, but it may conserve the energy that it takes for them to do so successfully.
5. What future developments do you hope for in human evolution, and how do you think genetic engineering could speed up the process?
Darwin thought education was the most important factor in human development.
Report comment to moderator
Slightly off topic, yet somewhat related…and certainly an interesting note about yesterday….
August 28th – On This Date In History – Almost six weeks after getting his first view of the mountain tops as the waters recede, Noah sends a raven from the ark in search of dry land – Friday, August 28th, 2348 B.C. (James Ussher’s Annals of the World)
Sounds far more plausible to me than all that other nonsense accepted as fact today.
Report comment to moderator
I would love to see the candidates answer questions like this. However, I’d like to see them given the list of questions beforehand so they can actually compose thought-out responses. A “debate” forum doesn’t seem like the appropriate venue. Maybe each candidate could release written responses.
Some other ones I’d add that aren’t theological in nature:
1. Do you believe the global climate is warming and that human actions contribute this trend? If so, to what extent?
2. Do you believe that the profitability of businesses and economic growth in general should, at times, take a back seat to environmental concerns? What criteria would you use to evaluate when this should happen? If the situation were right, would you empower the EPA to create new regulations over the protest of a particular business or industry?
3. Do you think {Medicare | Medicaid | Social Security} as currently designed is constitutional?
4. Do you think we should return to the gold standard? If so, what is your response to the majority of economists who assert that to do so would have extreme negative consequences?
5. Under what conditions (never, health of the mother, rape/incest, etc.) do you think abortion should be legal? Supposing abortion were illegal in some circumstances, what punishment would you support for a pregnant woman arrested while attempting to obtain an illegal abortion? What do you consider to be the correct constitutional method for achieving your vision of abortion law?
6. Under what circumstances may the president deploy U.S. troops in a foreign military engagement without the consent of congress? What steps is a president constitutionally bound to follow before ordering such a deployment?
7. Do you think the following {describe some “advanced interrogation techniques”} constitute torture? If so, do you think use of such techniques by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies is warranted? If not, how would you respond to a foreign power or terrorist organization that employed such techniques on captured Americans?
8. Candidates often criticize opposition policies on the grounds that they contravene the will of the people. What is your response to polls that suggest the people overwhelmingly support: {include list of issues on which public opinion differs from the Republican platform}. If you were elected to office, would you support the will of the people on these issues? If not, under what circumstances do you consider the president should ignore or actively work against the peoples’ will?
9. Do you consider it a sin for two adults of the same gender to engage in consensual sex? Do you agree with the court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas in which it ruled that a anti-sodomy law in Texas was unconstitutional?
I feel like these are “wedge” questions. Any answer is likely to tick off some voting bloc within the Republican party. If you answer in such a way as to appease the religious right then you stand to alienate non-believing (or moderate) Republicans. If you answer in a way that appeases the religious right then you may tick off many non-believers and moderates. I feel like getting answers to these questions would be good, though, because it would lay bare where each candidate stands. More (and more accurate) information = good.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/opinion/american-theocracy-revisited.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
..But they don’t recognize these tendencies for what they often are: not signs of religious conservatism’s growing strength and looming triumph, but evidence of its persistent disappointments and defeats.
…
Report comment to moderator
I’m not sure that these questions are asked in good faith, but as a free thinker I’ll take a shot at them.
1) To say the constitution evolves is a fallacy akin to saying any one individual can evolve. Individuals don’t evolve populations do, and in this metaphor the constitution is just one important individual in a population of legal interpretations, tests, decision and statutes. That legal “population” can and should evolve in ways that produce the greatest benefit for the most people.
2) I would save the baby human because it is a human and not a chimp. That’s a decision anyone who is not Peter Singer would make, and Peter Singer’s influence on public policy is being greatly exaggerated in this article. It’s exaggerated so much I literally never hear about Peter Singer except from conservatives mocking or complaining about Peter Singer. I don’t know a single public official who counts Peter Singer as an adviser or who has even praised a work by Peter Singer. Also (I’m not sure if this applies to Singer but) hardcore animal rights people are not classifiable as either right or left in American politics as they often take issues against corporate exploitation of animals AND social welfare programs. A significant expansion of human rights is a very liberal thing; ask Peter Singer what he thinks of it!
3) Are you trying to dog whistle race relations? That’s super irresponsible. I’m not sure if Darwin was particularly “evolved” (/snicker) when it came to race relations, but I have observed a general hypocrisy among conservatives when it comes to historical figures and their attitudes about race. Why must Washington and Jefferson be excused for their racism because of historical context but not a naturalist like Darwin? Have a little consistency (and a little integrity) please.
4) Any naturalist knows of the dangers of a species succeeding itself to death. Growing fears about rising global populations and the demands significantly more people will place on our resources underscore this. Fact is you can significantly link abortion policy to beneficial social outcomes like the 1990’s drop in violent crime. Now don’t get me wrong American abortion policy has nothing to do with population control and it’s fallacious to talk about it like it does, but you chose to frame the question in this way to score some little dig at the idea that naturalism and abortion don’t mix on an ideological level. I think you come out looking ignorant for your effort.
5) All of our life spans are too short to witness any future developments in human evolution, but we know from observing other species that our population will significantly change over the next 100,000 years or so. Even 1000 years ago we were undoubtably a lot shorter on average! What will we look like 100,000 years from now is a mystery to all of us, but genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role without a major social shift in public attitude. There are a view transhumanists out their who might argue for a full steam ahead approach into the abyss. But those people are theorist. They aren’t (currently) creating public policy in either party, and they are not a politically uniform group of people that can be called either right or left.
Report comment to moderator
If I were a Republican candidate, especially Ms. Bachmann, I would ignore Keller, except to give him a copy of a Volokh’s contributor’s new book on the bias in the MSM. Apparently, he claims to be able to prove liberal bias statistically, and I know how much that means to Scroopy.
Report comment to moderator
If, as most people agree, the meaning of words evolves over time, how can our interpretation of any document not evolve with them?
Conservatives (and occasionally liberals) often try to avoid this problem by going back to something called “original intent”, but human motivations for anything are far too complex to neatly pigeonhole, most especially in a political situation such as the writing of a constitution or any document produced not just by one person whose intent may be discernible but by an entire committee of people, many of whose motives may have been highly complex.
Of course religious conservatives are familiar with the problem, given the 2000 year history if inter-Christian schisms, shunnings, torture, executions, and violence that their disagreements with other-minded folks have produced…
Insisting on “original intent” when reading the constitution leads to the same dilemmas that claims that “the entire bible is the inerrant word of god” does; one has to defend the indefensible contradictions and inaccuracies from time to time and thus expose ones own self the entire document to ridicule.
Report comment to moderator
Keller asks specific questions of specific canidates based on previous comments by these candidates, hence, his questions are valid. IF and only if Olasky finds a candidate who cites Darwin as his greatest influence then his questions may be valid but as it is they are inapplicable to anyone.
Report comment to moderator
As an aside: questions with answers that divide the electorate are the best kind. Why? Because they tease out information that’s actually useful to people for the purpose of deciding between candidates.
If you ask a panel of Republican hopefuls, “Do you believe in small government?” and they all say “Yes” then what have you really gained? You didn’t get any new information. You didn’t learn anything that would lead you to choose candidate A over candidate B. Hey, both support small government!
That’s why the evolution question is a good one. There’s a significant group of Republican voters for whom disbelief in the Biblical creation story is a big negative. There’s another significant group of Republican voters for whom belief in the Biblical creation story is a big negative. So it seems like a bit of knowledge that might be “useful” to a fairly significant percentage of Republican voters.
That’s not to say this question would be good for the Republican party as a whole. I don’t think it would. Currently the set of Republicans for whom disbelief in the literal creation story is a net negative is much larger than the set for whom this view is a net positive. Consequently the former group is able to enforce a litmus test of sorts on the party’s presidential candidates. The only reason the moderate and secular Republicans are still voting Republican is that the candidates usually maintain a facade that placates both camps. They put on display a vague version of their faith in order to appeal to the Christians, then, in order to avoid alienating the secular moderates, avoid explicitly stating many of the views that flow from this faith.
A candidate who says “I believe the earth is 6000 years old, all humans are descended from a literal Adam and Eve, everybody who dies without saving faith in Christ is destined to spend eternity in torment separated from God, Mormonism is a heresy and Mormons aren’t Christians. Also gay sex is a sin and the Supreme Court got it wrong in Lawrence v. Texas,” stands to alienate a large set of Republican voters.
But if all a candidate says is “I’m a Christian and a conservative” then hints at doubts about evolutionary theory and talks up his support for “traditional values” (without specifying exactly what that means) then he can manage to appeal to the Christian right without driving everybody else away.
I’d like to see questions asked that shatter this facade.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass:
I agree with you. Unfortunately, elections are won not by informing voters who will judiciously weigh the positions of various candidates, but by mobilizing more of your base than the other guy. For this very reason, “wedge questions” that force candidates off their platitudes and talking points are assiduously avoided and even considered in bad taste by loyal partisans (e.g., Olasky’s complaint about “gotcha questions”).
How dare you ask a question that might cool the fire of some in my base?
It’s gotten so bad that politicians simply stalwartly refuse to answer these sorts of questions by repeating again and again their talking point:
– “Like I said, I support traditional values.”
– “But what do you mean by that?”
– “The traditional values that have made America great. I support them.”
– “Specifically, though, would you even appoint a gay judge to the bench?”
– “My position is clear. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. And I support traditional values.”
– “With respect, Congresswoman, you haven’t answered–”
– “Yes, I have. That is my answer. I support traditional values.”
And if that doesn’t work, there’s always that entirely elastic line, “this isn’t what the American people care about.” Because the candidate’s goal is precisely not to answer questions, because answers can be disagreed with, and people who disagree will be less motivated to get out and vote for you. The candidate’s goal during interviews is simply to get as much face time as she can while appearing presidential and using the Luntz-tested buzzwords that get people to feel positive about her and mark as much with their little dials.
Report comment to moderator
RE #7 – The linked article by Ross Douthat seethes as angrily as Marvin Olasky’s, but is far less vulnerable.
Douthat says journalists shouldn’t ask Teavangelicals these questions unless they ask comparable questions of Obama. Rather than add kindling to the firebox, Douthat tells everyone to get out of the kitchen and go back to the dining room, where they will discover that the meat loaf doesn’t taste radically different than the pot roast.
Douthat’s premise is false, of course. Obama’s religion isn’t comparable to Teavangelicalism, and there are no questions to ask of him, unless you want to get lectured about Reinhold Niehbur.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I get that candidates abhor these types of questions. I wasn’t trying to suggest that candidates should insist on them, but that the press and voters should. It would take a pretty strong media entity to force the candidates to participate, though, since if any smaller player were “up front” about the fact they were going to ask tough questions the contenders would just opt out altogether.
Where we might differ is on the question of whether partisans should have a preference for “tough” questions. I think they should. If I were a voter who hated the idea of voting for a candidate who rejected the literal Biblical creation account then you better bet I want to hear the candidates answer that question.
On the other hand, if I’m a guy who just wants Obama out of office and doesn’t really care who beats him then yeah…I want them to lob up softballs.
Report comment to moderator
Lots of people say we should give Darwin a pass on his racism because lots of people were racist those days. But they miss the point. I have read the Descent of Man (seems like lots of people haven’t) and his racism is the _meat_of_his_argument_! The racism isn’t incidental; rather, he argues from racism to Darwinism. The argument is very clear and restated multiple times: because we clearly see inferior races of people, we should generalize that concept to species as well as races, and see on continuum of superior and inferior extending not only to humans but to all of life. Read the book! He assumes racism, and uses that as the core of his argument. That is one reason his book was so quickly accepted in the 19th century– it made sense. Social Darwinism preceded Darwinism and formed the basis of its acceptance.
Report comment to moderator
In my experience, partisans are overwhelmingly of the second type. And partisans run politics.
Report comment to moderator
The reason they’re gotcha questions is that no mainstream journalist ever thought to ask candidates stuff like this until someone like Keller decided the answers might be something people wouldn’t like.
Report comment to moderator
What really sticks in Olasky’s craw is that Keller tells each candidate, ” If any of these questions misrepresent those influences, I hope you will correct them.”
Translation: None of these Teavangelicals will answer the questions. Each will take offense at being asked. All of them will correct the NYTimes for not being Fox News.
JJF #3 says “bring it on”
I agree. Olasky seems to be ashamed of the Gospel. Jesus never yelped at being asked a gotcha question. Just answer the darned questions, please.
HRW #11 says “objection, no foundation”
I used to agree with this, but I think that train has left the station. People today want to think about all human problems in terms of God. There are many reasons for this preference, including, ionically, postmodernism itself. God is baaaack.
Besides, I think Democrats can find the words to express their bias toward science and philosophical naturalism in a way that appeals to most members of Western civilization.
Report comment to moderator
The reason they’re gotcha questions is that no mainstream journalist ever thought to ask candidates stuff like this until someone like Keller decided the answers might be something people wouldn’t like.
Yeah, but that’s what makes them interesting questions. Why would I want to see the candidates asked, “Do you think we should eat children?” They’d all give an emphatic “No!” which is the answer everyone (rightly) expects. You can substitute in any other widely held conservative position. If there’s no disagreement among the candidates then your question probably sucked.
If, however, we think that a candidate (or candidates) hold a view that many find objectionable and that most don’t realize that candidate holds, then that seems like good fodder for a debate question.
Report comment to moderator
Snoke, I have 3 responses.
[1] Have you really read the Decent of Man or just the parcels you read on conservatives sites? In DoM, Darwin takes questions about human race like “Are humans all one species or are our different races independent species?” and he lays out all the arguments for various positions before giving his own. That makes it really easy to pull quotes from DoM that make Darwin out to look like a hardcore racist, but that’s not the case. Darwin sides against viewing different races as different species. He points out that there’s no biological difference in ability. He argues that the races interbreed, that there’s more variation within racial groups than between them, that all races have a common ancestry, and that races are not distinct but blend together. Maybe you read it a long time ago when you were really young, but it’s clear that you misunderstood it.
Darwin was an abolitionist with a more socially liberal stance than Lincoln! Compare the two mens’ statements on American Slavery.
Darwin writing in 1834: “I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions [about slavery] would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him; such cheerful, open, honest expressions and such fine muscular bodies.”
Lincoln said to cheers and laughs in 1858: “I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.”
Sorry Darwin was surely no higher-caliber of racist more than Washington, Jefferson or even the great emancipator himself.
[2] Evolutionary theory at the time had the exact opposite effect on race relations. Darwin’s position that all the races of humanity had a common origin was at they time a rebuttal to RELIGIOUS RACISM that invested white people with higher moral standing. Before Darwin biology was a highly theological field and men pulled from the Bible several racist justifications for the “chosen people” status of Whites. When Columbus and the Spanish invaded the Americas they were acting under the direction of the Pope and the slaughter of the natives was justified via Christian theology. John Winthrop celebrated that Natives in Massachusetts were dying of small pox as a sign that God was clearing the land for his chosen people! Winthrop in in 1634: “for the natives, they are near all dead of the smallpox, so as the Lord hath cleared our title to what we possess.” Darwin was if anything an opponent of the religious racism of the time. Christians in general should not go down this path. There are too many skeleton’s in our closet for that. If we want social context to excuse the racist actions of those we still venerate, we can’t go throwing it in other peoples faces.
[3] Darwin is an important figure in the development of evolutionary theory, but this fixation on Darwin (like on Singer or on Sanger) is still mightily fallacious. The backbone of evolutionary theory has moved so far beyond Darwin you’re sinking your hooks into a foundation that’s been replaced over and over again. So what’s the point of all this race baiting anyway? You say Darwin was a racist? But we’ve mapped the genome! And we found proof for evolutionary theory that Darwin never even dreamed of. Give it a rest.
Report comment to moderator
Buddyglass #13 you’re correct. In addition the answers to Bill Keller’s questions, and Marvin Olasky’s questions would require more than a soundbite. Knowing what we already know about the candidates and the incumbent, would their answers make any real difference to the voters?
Obviously their answers will make a huge difference in the way they govern. Worldview is more important than many think.
Report comment to moderator
Keller is on the right track, but his ignorance and mypoia is causing him to focus only on what he considers to be embarrassment to the Repub candidates. He ignores the Marxist reglion of the Dems and should consider leveling the playing field of all the candidates to their particular religious worldviews and the impact to our nation.
Olasky is on the right track to try and level the playing field but the questions can be more universal to involve all religious worldviews rather than the anti-Christian bigotry Keller takes, etc. Rewording some of Keller’s questions for all candidates would read something like:
1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their religious worldview, be it Christian, Mormon, Marxism, etc with respect to their view on the role of the state and laws and economics?
2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or worldview thinkers and ideologues and politicians whose books they recommend?
3. (a) Do you agree with those religious worldview leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” or “post-Christian nation” or “never been a Christian nation” (b) What does that mean in practice?
4. If you encounter a conflict between your religious worldview, (particulary Marxist socialism) and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience? Would you recommend executive orders to bypass Congress and the Constitution if your worldview so dictates? How would that affect who you pick for judgeship?
5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Christian, Mormon, Jew, or Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist or Marxist? How do you believe a Marxist, Muslim or an atheist would resolve their philosophical differences with the Constitution?
6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates? Who are Marxist in your view? Should the fact that Obama and most Dems are Marxist/Fascist influence the way you think about these candidates and their ability to uphold the Constitution and responsibly handle the budget or deal with private enterprise?
7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth? What do you think of the Marxist movement and what do you think that agenda is doing to the well being of the nation? What good has it done the nation since FDR? Should only Marxists hold public office?
8. (a) What is your attitude toward the concepts of evolution, creation and intelligent design? (b) Do you believe all three, their stengths and weaknesses, should be taught in public schools to help students develop true critical thinking skills rather than be force fed the crumbling concept of neo-Darwinism?
9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in the pledge of allegiance and/or prayer in public schools? Do you believe the local community should be given back the full control of their local schools or is it up to Big Brother to control all?
10. How far has the Federal govt exceeded their Constitutional authority and what actions would you propose to return specific rights and responsibilities back to the states and people?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t really have any thoughts regarding Olasky’s Questions 2-5.
As to Q1, he seems to misapprehend what is means when people refer to the Constitution as a living document. No one is arguing that any particular underlying constitutional principal is shifting in its fundamental meaning. That’s simply a straw man argument.
It has long been recognized that many of the rights and obligations recited in the Constitution stand in tension with each other. Part of the Court’s job is to resolve this tension in view of the facts of a particular case. During certain times and seasons, we may be more likely to favor certain constitutional principles over others, which may in turn be followed by another era in which there is something of a corrective effect.
I would also note that SCOTUS jurisprudence has been rather stable over time, particularly in comparison to that almost any other country’s high court. Without question, we have the finest judiciary of any country in the world. They are worthy of respect, and do not deserve to be the targets of unfounded and unsubstantiated attacks.
Report comment to moderator
Redwal asks,
I’m not sure what, specifically, you’re referring to when you talk abouat Washington and Jefferson’s racism, but any genuine “racism” (defined as the idea that a given race is intrinsically inferior to another) they may have harbored would’ve been inconsistent with their broader worldview principles. Darwinism, on the other hand, is an intrinsically racist worldview, so that the racism of Darwin or his followers is consistent with, and integral to, the worldview. Granted, not all Darwinists are racists, and maybe even most of them aren’t, but those who aren’t are the inconsistent ones.
Report comment to moderator
Darwinism, on the other hand, is an intrinsically racist worldview…
How do you figure? Unless you’re defining “Darwinism” differently than most people. Some dictionary definitions:
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think many voters would be influenced significantly by thoughtful and carefully written answers. What would be most influential are the short “sound bites” used to accuse the opponents of stupidity, bigotry, intolerance, etc. We can fairly accurately guess how any particular candidate would answer such questions. I am suspicious that the questions are really aimed at getting a candidate to say something that can be a “sound bite” to use against them.
Report comment to moderator
BG,
The bigger picture of Darwinism did legitimize racism under the banner of science, the rage of the times. Darwin postulated it in his Descent of Man addressing the more advanced (evolution wise) races with the less advanced. He collaborated social Darwinism with Herbert Spencer. He collaborated with his cousin Francis Galton on eugenics. You’re looking only at the current use of Darwinism, go back to the 1930s and earlier and you’ll discover the racism within the theory.
Darwinism has a detrimental worldview implication when put into psychological and sociological practice.
Report comment to moderator
NE,
You are probably very correct about the intent of the Keller type questions. However, what do you think it would take to get the sound bite mentality out of the gutter and move candidate positions into legitimate, thouthful conversation?
Report comment to moderator
Darwiminism does not have to lead to the traditional racism of white supremacy. Many African-Americans now believe that they are the superior race. They claim that more melanin makes them superior, that the first humans were Africans, and that civilization started in Africa. They bolster these claims with the research of physical anthropologists and paleontologists.
—–
As I read Olasky’s questions and the responses of some on this thread, I think that people are arguing with his presentation but not with the substance.
Maybe you don’t want to connect liberal interpretations of the Constitution with Darwinism or evolution, but there are liberal interpretations that treat the Consitution as though it naturally changes over time. Think about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe v Wade.
Maybe liberals in general do not agree with Pete Singer or other radical ethicists, but what are you/they doing to oust him? Tacit agreement is essentially the same as active agreement.
You might not believe that racism and Darwinism are linked anymore or that anyone believes in Social Darwinism these days, but we have–in practice–such a system. We have the rich and powerful lawyers in Washington keeping a whole group of people in substandard housing projects.
You might not wish to link Darwin and abortion, but abortion does weed out “undesirable” babies from the population, and if you are not outright cheering that outcome, you certainly are not expressing disagreement with it. You, after all, whoever you are, are one of the fortunate ones who was not aborted. You are a member of the superior class.
If you think that public distaste for too muchgenetic engineering will keep it from happening, you are ignorant of the history of science. Think of the horrible experiments that have been done on people in the name of “progress.” Don’t talk ignorantly.
Report comment to moderator
“You’re looking only at the current use of Darwinism, go back to the 1930s and earlier and you’ll discover the racism within the theory.”
Or a lot earlier…since Darwin died in 1882. But really you’re claims are horse pucky! Darwin believed that mental traits could be inherited, which is true. He did not believe in forced sterilization. He was supportive of social welfare for poor families. And on and so forth.
And the extent of Darwin’s collaboration with Galton was an experiment involving blood transfusions in rabbits! Galton had a incorrect theory that heredity was the result of particles in your blood and wanted to see if white rabbits would have brown babies if transfused with blood from a brown rabbit. It didn’t work.
And no, Darwin did not pave the way for scientific racism. As I’ve already covered, by the time Darwin came along scientific racism was already well established, specifically established by the church.
Report comment to moderator
Briefly: I think they are relevant questions, but should be asked of all candidates, Republican and Democrat. And the responder should be given time to discuss the answer.
Marvin’s questions are good too. Asked of everyone. I.e. “Under my plan, the price of electricity will necessarily skyrocket.”
Report comment to moderator
If there is a “higher secular law” that Keller wants followed, then he has violated it. The Constitution does not have a religious test — but he seems to have forgotten that.
Report comment to moderator
“He was supportive of social welfare for poor families. And on and so forth.”
There aren’t too many evolutionists, including Darwin who can take their own horse pucky to it’s logical conclusions.
“And no, Darwin did not pave the way for scientific racism. As I’ve already covered, by the time Darwin came along scientific racism was already well established, specifically established by the church.”
Which church was this? The church doesn’t do science. Not even in the “flat earth” days did they do any science. They adopted Aristotle views until Galileo came along and shifted the paradigm.
Galileo didn’t argue against the church, as much as the church wanted to ban his books like they wanted to ban Luther. He argued against Aristotle.
Have you even read the Decent of Man, or do you just grab the liberal cliff notes?
Report comment to moderator
Keller has described himself as a “collapsed Catholic, well beyond lapsed,” whatever that might mean. He criticized Pres. Bush’s “public piety” and described Rick Santorum as a “Catholic theocrat.”
I call Keller a traitor. On his authority the Times revealed details of the National Security Agency’sclassified Terrorist Surveillance Program, that wiretapped suspected terrorists’ international phone calls and domestic emails. He and the Times also published an article on yet another classified program that monitored terrorist-related financial transactions through the Belgium-based SWIFT. He was never prosecuted for revealing classified information that could threate national security. He said it was his job for his readers.
On 9/6 he officially steps down as exec. editor and begins his job as an op-ed writer in the Times Magazine and a new section in the paper. I imagine he can’t wait to become relevant during this presidential campaign.
Report comment to moderator
I think some of the best questions are those which the candidates ask each other.
Report comment to moderator
Darwin postulated it in his Descent of Man addressing the more advanced (evolution wise) races with the less advanced.
I haven’t read the book so I can’t speak from experience, but other posters (#21) seem to suggest you’re misunderstanding the book. Darwin seemed to acknowledge that all “races” are part of the same human species, so I’m not sure how he could have seen some as being “further evolved” or “less evolved”.
Report comment to moderator
NYT’s Keller Admits ‘Late to Rev. Wright’ in 2008, But Claims Paper Handled Story Well.
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2011/20110826041350.aspx
… outgoing Executive Editor Bill Keller received some pushback on his recently posted column that demanded, in rather insulting fashion, that the media more aggressively question the religious views of the G.O.P. candidates.
**”Yes, Dems should be asked about their faith (and influences) too. We were late to Rev. Wright in ‘08, but we got there, and did it well.”
Keller’s half right. They didn’t cover it particularly well even after they woke up, instead comparing Obama’s politically necessary political address on the matter to speeches on civil rights by JFK, LBJ and Abraham Lincoln. The Times showed unseemly eagerness not only to help Obama move on from Wright, but paint the confrontation to his political advantage against a racially challenged G.O.P.
Report comment to moderator
“but other posters (#21)”
That would be “poster”, since you only cited one person. And it’s Redwal, who’s understanding of science is just as questionable.
“Darwin seemed to acknowledge that all “races” are part of the same human species”
Of course, but he’d also acknowledge that we share a common ancestor with apes too. So at some point there was divergence. Early on it’s just little variation, but over time the separation grew, right?
So in other words, black and whites sharing the same common ancestor doesn’t negate the evolutionary ideals of natural selection and speciation. From Darwinism you can easily argue that either whites or blacks were/are diverging and thus one superior vs inferior esp during his day when DNA was a large unknown.
How often is a color change (moths for instance) cited as “evolutionary proof”? Or Darwin’s finches?? The variation is minimal, yet every modern case of adaptation is cited and assumed as proof for long term accumulation.
“…as being “further evolved” or “less evolved”.”
Who are you quoting here? In your own post on definitions the last one says “increase the individual’s ability”.
That’s a measure of “further” is it not?
Whether Darwin saw it that way or not is mostly pointless. The guy even though somewhat religious at times, did not like the implications his theory placed on God. He couldn’t reckon with the logical conclusions that are deduced if we are just better evolved animals. So it would not be surprising to me if he championed the end of slavery or was not racist himself, despite his own scientific theories and where they lead.
Report comment to moderator
Keller’s a hack. More on the same lines as Louise’s #38,
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/30/bill-kellers-beclowning-achievement/
“On Twitter, Keller had two responses to his critics. First, Keller noted that he was not seeing any quarrel with the basic point that we should ask candidates about their faith. I certainly have no quarrel with that point. In 2008, I wrote about Barack Obama’s decades-long membership in a church based on black liberation theology and his decades-long relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and criticized the establishment media for not treating Obama the way JFK or Mitt Romney were treated on faith issues.
However, this merely underscores the major criticism lodged against Keller, which was that the New York Times avoided giving Obama scrutiny on faith issues. Keller’s second response was that the NYT was “late to Rev. Wright in ’08, but we got there, and did it well.” This response is dishonest or delusional, possibly both. When a political controversy erupts in March 2008 and the NYT does not give it proper news coverage until September 2008, getting there late is bad coverage. Would Keller defend covering a hurricane six months late? Please. Nor was the quality of the NYT coverage good, by the standards Keller now thinks should be applied, asking none of the sort of questions Keller now thinks should be asked. Indeed, Keller’s response on this point is particularly embarrassing once you learn that the NYT actually covered Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright in April 2007, reporting:
It is hard to imagine, though, how Mr. Obama can truly distance himself from Mr. Wright. The Christianity that Mr. Obama adopted at Trinity has infused not only his life, but also his campaign. He began his presidential announcement with the phrase “Giving all praise and honor to God,” a salutation common in the black church. He titled his second book, “The Audacity of Hope,” after one of Mr. Wright’s sermons, and often talks about biblical underdogs, the mutual interests of religious and secular America, and the centrality of faith in public life.
With hindsight, it is easy to imagine how Obama could distance himself: by relying on the establishment media generally, and the NYT in particular, to mostly look the other way at the crucial moment.”
A partisan political hack, but a hack none the less.
Report comment to moderator
BG,
I’d suggest you read his works, both On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and find out how he thought ‘civilized’ man’s intellect was more highly evolved than ’savage’ man’s intellect and moral capacities due to extended use of mental activity. “Darwin argues that even moral and social instincts are evolved, comparing religion in man to fetishism in “savages”…..”
You still have to consider the bigger picture to fully appreciate the devastation this religion cloacked in scientism has caused the human race.
Report comment to moderator
10. If, as most people agree, the meaning of words evolves over time, how can our interpretation of any document not evolve with them?
The meaning of words does evolve over time. That does not mean you interpret everything you read based on current definitions. If you approach everything you read with that mindset, all of it – from the Bible to the Constitution to Jane Austen – becomes nonsensical. You have to go back to the original intent and translate the outdated words and words that have changed meaning into words with the same meaning in modern language.
Paragraph 20 of Magna Carta says:
A freeman shall not be amerced for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the offense, yet saving always his “contentment”; and a merchant in the same way, saving his “merchandise”; and a villein shall be amerced in the same way, saving his “wainage” if they have fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of honest men of the neighborhood.
First, amerced must be translated to mean “fined.” Next, what does it mean to save an offender’s “contentment”? In modern English one could take it to mean he should not have to pay a fine if it makes him unhappy. That is obviously not what the barons who wrote it meant. An offender in the 13th century would not have been any happier about paying a speeding ticket than you or I would. Yet he would still have to pay if convicted. What it means, given the context of the document and the circumstances surrounding its creation, is that no one would be subject to unreasonable fines that went beyond his or her ability to pay without the added threat of debtor’s prison.
Report comment to moderator
NARISSARA, thanks for that excellent example. Sometimes it’s so hard to get through to those with blinders on to the context.
Report comment to moderator
The Anti-Science Smear. Liberalls embrace the rhetoric of science, but not its cautious and dispassionate reasoning.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/275818/anti-science-smear-rich-lowry
Science is often just an admunct to the Left’s faith commitments. A Richard Dawkins takes evolutionary science beyond its competence and argues that it dictates atheism. An Al Gore makes it sound as if there is no scientific alternative to his policy preferences. They are believers wrapping themselves in the rhetoric of science while lacking all the care and dispassionate reasoning we associate with the practice of it.
… Perry’s somewhat doubtful take on evolution has more to do with a general impulse to preserve a role for God in creation and is in the American mainstream. According to Gallup, 40% of Americans think God created man in his present form, and 38% think mandeveloped over millions of years with God guiding the process.
Report comment to moderator
*The whole sentence bears (corrected) repeating.
Science is often just an adjunct to the Left’s faith commitments.
Report comment to moderator
Watch for things to get worse. The Left has created an imaginary world in which we’re always just a short step away from a Christian theocracy, and the only answer is to drive Christianity out of the public square.
“The anti-God squad. Sowing fear of GOP 2012 pack.”
http://www.nypost.com/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_anti_god_squad_v1c2bXi74DxORqzn3yFqsl
… Keller posed a series of loaded opposition-research inquiries [to the GOP field] that essentially demanded assurances their faith would play no role in any decision made as president. The proper answer to all such reverse-Inquisition questions is, of course: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Religious faith is the norm, not the exception, when it comes to both US politicians and plain old American citizens.
JFK was never going to take orders directly from the Pope and the GOP field is hardly likely to take political advice from professors at Oral Roberts University or the elders of the Mormon Church.
But if bigotry is wrong, then it’s wrong in any instance. The candidates should tell the nosy Parkers of the media what to do with their questions and get back to the real challenges facing the country.
Next week there will be a debate at the Reagan Library I think.
Report comment to moderator
“none of your business” — great answer!
The first time Gov. Perry gives this answer in a debate, Pres. Obama can wave at the cameras and say, “My fellow Americans, y’all can switch the cannel. I’m going to Martha’s Vinyard for another vacation until after the election. Don’t forget to vote. The day after you give me a new congress, we’ll go to work to put you back to work.”
Report comment to moderator
Scroop 47 – In your dreams.
Report comment to moderator
The proper answer to all such reverse-Inquisition questions is, of course: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.
That’s a terrible answer. It dodges the question. It’s a question the electorate deserves an answer to. A better answer might be:
“Of course my faith will influence my presidential decision making, just as it has influenced the presidential decision making of every president before me. If you have questions about a specific policy position or how I might respond to a specific hypothetical situation then please go ahead and ask.”
This forces the questioner to address specific concerns, which the candidate can then dispel.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop,
I thought that is what Obama says and does no matter what or even if anyone says or does anything. He doesn’t need a reason to go on a vacation or blame Bush or other republicans.
all I hear from him is:
(static)…(static)… chunk!
(static)…(static)… chunk!
(static)…(static)… chunk!
Report comment to moderator
The extreme bias of most of the press makes it so difficult to get to real issues and to understand what candidates really believe and thus are likely to do as office holders. MO’s questions are all valid but there are hundreds more I would like to ask of candidates that are “not religious” such as: On what basis have you formed your view of human nature? Do you believe there is something fundamentally wrong in this world and if so what is the cause? Do you believe evil exists? Why or why not? Do you believe humans are basicly good? If so how do explain the massive examples of evil acts that have ben a never ending part of human history right up to the present day? Do you believe ending poverty will end human struggle? Why? Do you believe education will end human struggle? If so why?
Report comment to moderator
About Darwin and the word “race.” If you go back Darwin and the biologists of that era used the word race in reference to plants and animals similarly to the way we would use the word “strain” or “breed.” There are many instances when he speaks of race that he isn’t talking about people.
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t that what guys like Rwhawk were claiming above though?
That if Darwin treats the human species no different than animals… then the implications are that if a German Shepherd is superior to a chihuahua, then black people can be superior to whites. Different strains/breeds cause racism.
This is the point, that you have just now validated.
He paved the way for scientific racism, whether he carried his personal views to that extent or not, doesn’t matter. You can build a road and never drive on it yourself.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!