Just the other day I wrote that I’d be happy to help Mark Sanford win the White House. I should have known better than to think a politician might be worth, well, anything at all, but sometimes even the best among us (e.g., me) make mistakes.
Almost as soon as Mark Sanford won me over with his kind words about libertarianism, I find out he’s actually an ignoramus. Little Green Footballs highlights this exchange with the chief executive of South Carolina’s government:
DS: What do you think about the idea of teaching alternatives to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in public schools* for instance Intelligent Design?
Gov. Sanford: I have no problem with it.
DS: Do you think it should be done that way? Rather than just teaching evolution?
Gov. Sanford: Well I think that it’s just, and science is more and more documenting this, is that there are real “chinks” in the armor of evolution being the only way we came about. The idea of there being a, you know, a little mud hole and two mosquitoes get together and the next thing you know you have a human being* is completely at odds with, you know, one of the laws of thermodynamics which is the law of, of … in essence, destruction.
Whether you think about your bedroom and how messy it gets over time or you think about the decay in the building itself over time. Things don’t naturally order themselves towards progression*. Uuummm.. in the natural order of things. So, it’s in fact, it’s against fairly basic laws of physics* and so I would not have a problem in teaching both * Uh, you saying this is one theory and this is another theory.
This isn’t my blog, so I won’t add much, but I tend to agree with Richard Dawkins that anyone who doesn’t accept Darwinism is stupid, ignorant or insane. In any event, such a person doesn’t belong in the White House. Sorry, Mark. Maybe we can still be friends.
Another example of why the liberty movement will get know where in this country. A non-issue (personal belief on the origin of life and man) is somehow important when considering someone's positions on the role of government. You've thrown away probably one of the few small-government politicians for disagreeing with his personal beliefs. For what? So you can support the “Libertarian” party candidates, likely in the congregation of evolution, but sadly more often than not having dubious libertarian credentials. Or maybe you want to support a mainstream party candidate who also believes in evolution? Tell me how that's worked over the last 200 years…If you don't want to support a politician, that's fine. But be honest about it. Oppose his politics, oppose his take on government. Don't oppose him because his favorite color is green, or whatever silly irrelevant issue you hold dear. For what it's worth, he's coming across as small government, libertarian minded on this issue. Letting parents, students and teachers decide what should be taught. *gasp* Letting people have their own beliefs! That doesn't belong in a libertarian society!
I see how it is: It comes down to liberty, only if you agree with it. It is, however, intellectually dishonest to claim he's for forcing creationism to be taught in schools. On the topic of teaching alternatives he said “I have no problem with it.” Not 'We must teach alternatives' or something similar. Who cares what one's person religious beliefs are? What matters is what he'd do in government. What you've posted shows indication that he'd be forcing curriculum through mandate. Don't let rabid anti-religious ideas get in the way of libertarianism.
Presidents appoint federal judges. Federal judges decide whether things like creationism are “science” or not. Therefore, just on that basis alone, a politician's ignorant rantings about Darwinism are relevant. Refusing to recognize reality is not a “personal belief”; it is a sign of deep ignorance, mind-numbing stupidity or insanity. Which of those three characteristics would you like in your president?Is it so unreasonable to want a mainstream politician who understands both basic economics and basic biology? Is that so far out there as to not even merit hope? Where am I not being honest? I won't support Sanford because, apparently, he's a creationist lunatic. The National Science Foundation budget is over $6 billion. I don't want any creationist to have any influence on that budget or any other.Evidence should matter in politics. There's a lot at stake when a president makes decisions, and I want a president whose personal philosophy is grounded in evidence and logic, not gut feelings or faith. Clearly, Sanford is of the latter variety. When a president tells me he's sending troops to some country because there's evidence of terrorist activity there, I want to be confident that when he says “evidence,” he doesn't mean the vision he received while fasting and praying the night before.Finally, sometimes parents and teachers shouldn't have control over what they're allowed to teach children. It would be wrong to teach children that 2+2=5, or that triangles have four even sides, and schools shouldn't be allowed to teach children that nonsense. Nor should parents. Government has a legitimate interest in seeing an educated populace, and if it means limiting the ideas to which children are exposed, then so be it. If a parent wants to teach his or her child that they need to wash themselves in blood to free themselves of sin, then I guess there's nothing we can do about that unfortunate circumstance. But parents shouldn't be free to teach their kids that Earth is 6,000 years old any more than they should be free to prevent their kid from receiving life-saving chemotherapy.
This is the most amazing thing about the libertarian movement: the occasional insane bursts of intolerant statism intended to protect a belief in some sort of greater good. It's the top of the slippery slope we all watch for and protect ourselves against. Your statements basically just stated that you'd vote for Obama over Sanford because of religious beliefs. It's an illogical standpoint, and not at all a libertarian one.Put Sanford in perspective first, and then rethink your position. He is for small federal government, and opposed to most of the federal organizations over which he would have influence as President. Your argument assumes a LOT about his character, namely that he would claim to have visions that motivate him to do extremely non-libertarian things, and that he would act on them. He would sooner push to eliminate the NSF than use its money “irrationally.” Also, as CDM said, Stanford is supportive of it being taught next to evolution as two differing theories, not replacing it on some federal level. He didn't even say he would push for it, just that if each individual state or district wanted it, they could teach it. The government does have an interest in and educated populace, but I don't think this comes ahead of each state's right to educate their populace in the way they see fit. Federal mandate of education is pretty statist, a favorite tool of Nazis, Soviets, and modern European nations. If South Carolina were to teach only creation, and North Carolina taught only evolution, then by all means, move your ass to NC, or another state with policies you support. That's the idea of a limited federal republic with constitutional protections and freedom of movement.Once you look past this one particular issue, you then encounter something the rest of us like to call “the economy.” A few “nuts” who believe in creationism are far less damaging to a society than a bunch of Obamunists who support outdated and failed Keynesian economics, progressive policies, and government programs and regulation funded through increasing taxation. A libertarian President who believes in creation in no way could harm the nation as a whole like socialist ones can. I suppose you could look for a libertarian candidate that didn't support creation theories, but as we've seen, Barr is next to useless, and we can't hope for anyone from mainstream GOP or Democratic organizations to be anything better. I think it was Edmund Burke (could be mistaken) that wrote about how it was great that we have different states, because then we can experiment with different social and economic policies in different areas without seriously compromising the whole country. Sanford would in no way give the federal government more power, and so the states would retain their decisions for themselves. Teaching creation doesn't affect anyone's negative rights, so it shouldn't be that big of a problem. As for judges deciding what is and isn't science… comon, are you serious? Where does it make sense that someone with a liberal arts education and a lifetime of litigation studies becomes qualified to make scientific decisions about subatomic particles and molecular compounds? It's as silly as saying the Catholic church had the last word on the Earth being the center of the universe.Sanford is a great candidate with whom you find a flaw, but it's hardly a damning one. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water, as the saying goes. I'm not saying Sanford is the best candidate for President; he's not my first choice, but I would certainly vote for him over any of the nominees we have had since maybe Goldwater. If your attitude, as well as that of many other libertarians I have encountered, does not change, you're going to wake up in a socialist “utopia” with a well used copy of The Descent of Man given to every child.Note: I'm a creationist nut, but when it comes to politics I'm definitely a libertarian first. I would LOVE to have a domestically impotent federal government that allows me my beliefs and traditions, and I would also love to give you the right to practice your beliefs whatever they may be, in whatever way you see fit. Also, I don't believe in government schools, the free market could do a much better job, but if I'm having to pay for educating my kids, I want them to have an education I can agree with, even if that means moving to or from states that teach different things. I think our proverbial grass would be greener in different areas, but that's the great thing about a nation of states: there's something for everybody.
Proper recognition of the truths about our world is not a “rabid anti-religious” idea. And yes, there are some views that are so wrong that schools shouldn't be allowed to teach them. Geology class shouldn't entertain the flat earth hypothesis; astronomy shouldn't discuss astrology; chemistry shouldn't waste its time with alchemy; history shouldn't bother with holocaust deniers; and, of course, biology shouldn't bother with creationism.It has nothing to do with whether I “agree with it” or not. But some things are true and others aren't, and schools shouldn't be free to teach things that are obviously, uncontroversially untrue.
When you allow something like creationism to taint a political opinion of someone, you've let it become rabid anti-religious idea. Discounting Standford for a personally belief is asinine. I don't think religion should be taught in science class, but I don't have nor do I want the power to force people to be taught one thing or another. That's a a libertarian principle.
My point, again, is that creationism isn't just like any other “personal belief.” Rejecting Darwinism isn't the same thing as preferring the Lakers to the Celtics (bad example; that may be worse). It isn't like preferring the Gators to the Seminoles. It's a rejection of reality, of evidence and reason, and it represents a worldview that is fundamentally at odds with my own.Do you want astrology, alchemy, flat earth theory and holocaust denial taught in schools? Should parents be allowed to teach these things to their kids and call it “education”? If so, what shouldn't they be allowed to teach? Is there no limit to what parents may subject their kids to? At what point does “education” become “brainwashing”? Can the state intervene once parents have crossed that threshold, however you define it?
It's not a question of whether these subjects ought to be taught, rather could they be taught. Sanford simply indicated they could be taught, not necessarily that they ought to be taught. The libertarian and anarchist answer is the state should *never* intervene. Doesn't your position put you at odds with libertarian ideals? Isn't it like modern day prohibition? Where some drugs are legal (alcohol, tobacco) and others are not? Simply because some people don't mind the former and dislike the latter. The answer is to let people have freedom. And now we're way off the Sanford topic…
If the libertarian/anarchist answer is that the state should never intervene, then the libertarian/anarchist answer is crazy, stupid and wrong. Do you honestly believe parents should be able to do whatever they want to their kids? Surely that can't be your position. I don't agree that keeping creationism out of schools is like prohibition of drugs or alcohol, because those latter two are lifestyle choices as expressed by adults. Parents in positions of authority and respect teaching creationism to impressionable children just isn't the same thing. Once more, I'll ask: is there ANY idea you think kids shouldn't be taught in schools? Should we give equal time (or any time?) to holocaust deniers in AP U.S. history? If not, why not? Isn't that “prohibition”?One last time, this issue isn't about simple preferences or what I like or don't like, or what Sanford believes or doesn't believe. It's about Sanford's creationism as a reflection of a general worldview, and about his capacity to accurately weigh evidence, which is supposed to matter. It is clear that Sanford is either grossly ignorant of basic biology, or that he cannot adequately assess evidence. Either way, he isn't qualified for the presidency.