Patriotism of Dissenters

"It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority."
- Benjamin Franklin

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president . . . It is unpatriotic not to oppose [the President] to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1908


----
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our Number one priority and we will not rest until we find him!"
- President Bush, September 13, 2001

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- President Bush, March 13, 2002

Notice that these statements came 6 months to the day apart. So much for "not rest[ing] until we find him."

To the extent that he has and continues to fail in his duty to execute the "Number one priority" of the country, I do not support this President.
----

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Teddy Roosevelt

Suppression of Dissent

A blog called "Dr. Sanity" posted its "psychological assesment" of anyone who hates Bush. The following series of quotes originally comprise a single paragraph that I have broken up merely to interject my own thoughts and interpretation.

They argue: "the psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision."

I know nothing of this "collectivist 'utopian' agenda" and they don't explain, but let's read on.

The author then states: "I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country."

Thus, they equate 'hating Bush' with hating America and wishing harm upon it. Let's read on.

"They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate."

Who are these people who have "cheered" terrorists "at the gate?" I've heard nothing of this before. Certainly they are not speaking about those who carry out the the acts because that would be redundant to say that they cheer themselves, besides it is not the terrorists who they claim have a "collectivist utopian agenda."

"They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting."

If you 'hate' Bush you are "indistinguishable from" a terrorist.


They never explain what constitutes hating Bush. To what extent may I disagree before you label me or any other American a terrorist?

----
The mantra of the right is and has always been "you are with us or you are against us." To the Bush/righty sycophants, that means if you are not fully aligned with their agenda, you too are the enemy.

I contend that this attitude is dangerous. Consider the words of Nazi Reichsmarshall and Luftwaffe-Chief, Herman Goering "the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger."

The Pulse of the People

Dover Pennsylvania School Board, who is currently a defendant in litigation over teaching intelligant design, saw eight of its nine seats face election this week. All eight seats were won by candidates running specifically on an anti-intelligent design platform in a town where 70% of registered voters are Republican.

This would certainly indicate that the public disfavors teaching intelligent design in public schools, and not for any hostility toward religion. Upon learning of their victories, the candidates, gathered at the home of one of the candidates, "cheered, shed tears, [and] prayed." One supporter, Jill Reiter, explained “My kids believe in God. I believe in God. But I don’t think it belongs in the science curriculum." Further, the spokesman for the coalition of candidates is himself a Reverand.

Other sentiments, however, still prevail. Pat Robertson warned Dover citizens that "if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city." Speaking directly to the voting citizens of Dover on behalf of God he continued with his assertion to them that: "you just voted God out of your city" and if you find yourselves having problems "don't ask for His help because he might not be there."

Why Not Intelligent Design.

The argument for teaching intelligent design is that there is insufficient factual evidence to support evolution. Remarkably, when Michael Behe, the creater (no pun intended) of intelligent design, was asked whether there was factual support in favor of intelligent design, he conceded that there was "little".

Behe's own argument in favor of intelligent design (insufficient factual support) is more effective against his own position than supportive of it.

Education and Ideological Momentum

The Kansas State Board of Education has adopted standards to promote the teaching of intelligent design in schools. They follow the lead of a school district in Pennsylvania that is now embattled in litigation over the issue.

To adopt such standards, Kansas's Board of Education had to change their definition of "Science."

Meanwhile, the US continues to lag behind other nations in Math and Science (14th and 8th, respectively).

College science courses will not teach intelligent design. This leads to at least two problems:

1) Students who do not pursue further scientific studies will have a missunderstanding of the subject that will never be corrected. The scientific community completely disaffirms the idea of intelligent design. Even Michael Behe, who developed the idea based on religious beliefs ("I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors." What? Not scientific facts, Professor?), states that he is glad he waited until after he got tenure before advocating the idea.

2) Those who do pursue further scientific studies will have to then unlearn what they were previously taught. College level science courses will not be teaching any doctrine or theory based on intelligent design, but instead will rely heavily on evolution by natural selection - first introduced in 1859 by Charles Darwin, and obviously, subject to and withstood more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny.

When asked, isn't it true that intelligent design has little support in scientific fact, Behe conceded.

Who would want to send their children to a school where their science courses spend time teaching ideas that "ha[ve] little support in scientific fact?"

More of What Your Kids Should Not Be Allowed to Learn

A group of parents sued a Palmdale California school dictrict seeking damages suffered when the school taught their children about sex. The claim was that parents should have the exclusive right to talk to their children about sex.

Certainly, if that were the case, parents would have a claim against anyone who might discuss sex with their kids, even their children's friends(or more accurately, they could sue their kids' friend's parents).

I'm not even going to address the endless issues regarding how they'd expect to conduct biological education (should animal and plant reproduction be off limits too) or the free speech restrictions that would arise from such a conclusion.

Besides, isn't it the right that is complaining about a litigation explosion and the left overrunning institutions of education?

The Secret Goals of the Intelligent Designs Proponents

Surely you are aware that a Pennsylvania school district is currently embroiled in litigation regarding a requirement that students learn the so-called "intelligent design" explanation for the current state of nature in biology classes.

This case took an interesting turn this week when Alan Bansell, the President of the school board, was caught in a lie, and caught by the judge no less. Bansell had stated in two depositions that an unknown donor gave $850 to buy textbooks on intelligent design. A former board member, William Buckingham, testified in court that he did not know who donated the money. Later in court however, Bansell admitted that the money was given to him, as a check (not very anonymous), from Buckingham himself (This walks very close to the line of conspiracy to commit perjury, aside from the two separate perjury charges these individuals should face - reminder, you are under oath in a deposition).

Covert Motives
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from endorsing a religious practice or ideaology or being employed to promote the religious ideals of some group or individuals. The school board argues as their defense that intelligent design does not promote a religious doctrine or ideaology - if it does, using public school to teach it is unconstitutional.

Former school board member Aralene Callahan testified that Bonsell, “while at a district-sponsored retreat in March 2003, said he ‘did not believe in evolution’ and that if evolution needs to be part of the science curriculum, it should be balanced out ‘50-50’ with lessons on creationism,” long ago declared unconstitutional. Buckingham also advocated at board meetings for a textbook that included the biblical view of creation. “Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross,” he said. “Can’t someone take a stand for him?”

A fourth board member, Heather Geesey stated in a letter admitted as evidence at the trial that, "You can teach creationism without its [sic] being Christianity. It can be presented as a higher power." Sounds like she is advocating teaching religion under pretext. The same letter also commented that "Our country was founded on Christian beliefs and principles."

If you have any remaining doubt about the religious motives behind this policy consider the statement by Albert Mohler Jr., the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in defense of intelligent design: “Evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality . . . Debates over education, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality and a host of other issues are really debates about the origin -- and thus the meaning -- of human life,” Mohler said.

Teaching evolutionary theory, Mohler argues, is a "rejection of traditional morality."

In court, the argument the argument is starkly different. There, the school board members proclaim that intelligent design is a scientific theory. Is it science or religion? And aren't they upset because evolution is 'only a theory'?