That’s a hoot! I hadn’t heard that. I’ll keep an eye out for that one.

Again, this comes back to that crazy logic that scientists and/or secularists are afraid there really is a God, so they invent things like evolution so they can be sinful without consequence.

It goes like this (I may make it sound more rational than I’ve seen it presented, but that is the way my memory works):

Global warming ia a lie created by the evolutionists. God is slowly rising the temperature of the earth, not man-made action. Scientists know this and want to take artifical steps to thrawrt God’s will and actually lower the temperature. They are desperate to prevent the Antarctic ice cap from melting because their core samples have revealed that this will lay bare conclusive archaeological evidence that evolution is a lie.

I guess the assumption is that if we could seriously damage the Earth, that means we’re as powerful as God, which of course we can’t be.

I think that hits the nail on the head. I’ve often wondered why they rally around certain causes that in the larger population would see a wider spread of opinions.

And the younger ones are still homophobic and misogynistic, but they are growing up in a society that, for better or worse, shows strong female role models and homosexuals that aren’t bulls or flamers. I can’t help but believe that that can make a difference.

The green movement within the larger fundie population is mostly a generational thing. As the older fundies are finally dying off (hallelujah!), the younger ones who take over are more interested in a broader agenda than just gay-bashing and woman-suppression. We are starting to see some actually talk about global warming as a serious problem.

Unfortunately, these people are still a minority. Right now, the (very) old guard is still in charge and setting an anti-environmental agenda.

If you believe that God made the world, that everything he made has a reason, how can you not want to save a forest from becoming a mini-mall? Isn’t what god made more important than what man makes? Didn’t the Tower of Babel story teach you anything?

Sure, God supposedly gave us dominion over the earth. But, if my dad built me a house, I think he’d be pissed if I trashed it.

That being said, there is a small movement of ‘green’ fundies.

Lol, yea “parroting” is a phrase I’m not too keen on. Mainly because it implies mimicking without thought or understanding. As in, repeating something without knowing (or caring) exactly what it means. Parrots, in fact, do much more than mimic. They actually comprehend language and can speak correctly within context. Parrots do mimic, on occasion, simply because they hear something and, for whatever reason, decide to repeat it (maybe they enjoy how it sounds). But speaking parrots quickly pick up meaning of words and mostly use them correctly as they mature (same as human children learning to speak). The amazing work by Dr. Pepperberg and the late Alex the African Grey provided amazing insight into an animal mind — a very rare treat. I can only really think of one other experiment that probed so deeply into the thoughts of an animal through direct communication, which was/is with Koko (the Gorilla). Amazing stuff. And science, ever self-correcting, has had many previously incorrect assumptions shed due to experiments like this. There was a time when it was thought only humans used tools, had sex for fun (and not strictly for procreation), were able to vocalize (or sign) subject-verb-predicate language, directly communicate feelings via the language, do math, etc… Meanwhile, the Abrahamic religions still do not even assign a “soul” to an animal. According to them, animals are no different (and no more “living”) than rocks.

Anyway, off my soap box. Just to clarify, I really enjoy the Evolution articles, so don’t take what I said as a criticism. Even though it is not my “pet issue” per se, I believe it is monumentally important to the future of this country (and the world). The more people speaking out, the better.

I forgot one thing. You said:

My personal stance is that if you have more than two kids in this day and age, you are selfish. If you absolutely need more than two (or even more than one), then I believe you should adopt. There are many wonderful kids who need a home. It’s selfish to bring another one into this world for the sole reason of having one that “has your eyes” or whatever, when there are many kids with no home at all. As if your DNA is so much superior to what you would get through adoption.

I hate to quote Laura Schlessinger, of all people, but I agree with one thing she said. Some twit called up and whined about being sterile, so he couldn’t have any kids. Dr. Laura told him to adopt. He whined something about it not being the same. She said “Do you love your wife?” When he admitted that he did, she said “So you are capable of loving someone who isn’t related to you!”

Even the biggest swine is capable of the occasional pearl (that’s probably a massively mixed metaphor, but you get the idea).

Evolution denialism is the single biggest fundie threat to education, and its one of my pet issues, so it will continue to get a lot of coverage here. Amusingly, Skeptico has me listed under evolution (alongside Pharyngula, Sandwalk, and the Panda’s Thumb), even though he also has an “Atheist Blogs” category. OK, apparently I’ve given off a certain impression. This is actually supposed to be a church/state blog; that’s actually the overriding qualifier when I decide what to cover. Evolution denialism is merely my favorite church/state issue.

One reason I’ve shied away from covering other science denialism in the past is I’m trying to focus more on fundies than conservatives in general. The fundies made a conscious decision in the late 1970s (after being burned by Jimmy Carter) to hitch their wagon to the Republicans. As a result, they’ve bought into the conservative approach to social problems. Christianity has traditionally been concerned with liberal issues, such as poverty and social justice. Adopting the Republican approach has been a betrayal of traditional Christian values.

When I read the daily emails I receive from such fundie luminaries as James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon, et al, they sometimes promote the Republican issue of the day, often parroting (you can’t love that!) the official Republican talking points. I tend to avoid talking about those, because they’re indistinguishable from other Republican blowhards, such as Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Colter. I think the fundies are just being loyal to the Republican party, so the party will be loyal to them when the time comes.

The “free market fixes all” philosophy is something I think they’ve merely bought into over the last few decades. The fundies’ current claim is that Jesus’ preachings about caring for the poor meant that it was up to individuals and charities to do that job, not the government. Oh, I see. That’s one form of church/state separation that they have bought into.

Global warming denialism makes no sense at all unless you realize that most fundies are, in fact, conservative. There may be religious basis in their thoughts on this issue, but I believe it mostly stems from the philosophy of “free market fixes all” and the fact that they hate business regulation. To fix global warming, we need heavy regulation. So in addition to hating it on that basis, they also have to align that belief with their religion (because they cannot do anything, even taking a crap, without invoking their religion). It’s easy to do this when you redefine vague passages in an old book which has been retranslated hundreds of times.

Overpopulation is one of my pet issues, so I’m looking forward to your article on that. As I’ve previously mentioned, I’m Child-free By Choice (TM) for many, many other reasons than overpopulation, but that is certainly one happy side effect. My personal stance is that if you have more than two kids in this day and age, you are selfish. If you absolutely need more than two (or even more than one), then I believe you should adopt. There are many wonderful kids who need a home. It’s selfish to bring another one into this world for the sole reason of having one that “has your eyes” or whatever, when there are many kids with no home at all. As if your DNA is so much superior to what you would get through adoption. Granted, perpetuating your line is a strong natural instinct, but it’s hardly necessary to happiness. I know of no parent of adopted children who does not love them equally to a child of their own line.

And then there are the quiverfuls… Ugh. My arch-enemies in philosophy of life, our purpose, and our place in the universe.