Politics and religion margaritas! Half price Sundays!
October 28, 2007
Take 1oz of politics. Add 1 oz of religion. Shake and strain. Serve garnished with generous dash of stupidity:
FEDERAL Liberal candidate Pastor Peter Curtis says homosexuality is a perversion and that gay men die from disease at many times the rate of heterosexuals.
Hmm, and just why does he think that homosexuality is a perversion?
“As a Christian, I do not agree with the idea of homosexuality. That’s the reality. I can’t put it any other way,” Mr Curtis told The Sunday Age yesterday.
Ah. His religion. A good reason then [slaps head].
“I certainly could never change my views that homosexuality is a perversion, because it is a perversion.”
You can’t see it, but I’m laughing helplessly right now. That argument is like anti-logic. You could apply it to frying pans and reality would just slide right off.
Mr Curtis said his view that gay men were many more times likely to die from disease than heterosexuals was supported by several passages of scripture, and that he was simply stating the truth. “Homosexuality certainly does open up the door to things that are not helpful,” he said.
It’s funny, because I thought he was going to say here that his view was supported by scientific studies or statistical modeling and I was afraid that I’d have to go and look up the data. Silly me. Well, if it’s in scripture then it must be true [slaps head again].
Facing an uphill battle to defeat Ms Gillard, with Labor holding the seat by a margin of 8.8 per cent, Mr Curtis said he wanted to bring a more Christian focus to politics.
And here we are again. And again. What would be the reaction if a political candidate said that he (or she) wanted to “bring a more unicorn based focus to politics”? Is Christianity more acceptable because more people believe in it? To paraphrase Dawkins – one invisible sky fairy looks much like another to me.
He said that, if elected, he would be urging the Liberal Party to introduce intelligent design to state school science classes. Intelligent design is an assertion that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and not by natural selection.
Sigh. Do we have to go through this every single time? Intelligent Design is not science.
“I would be very much in favour of intelligent design being taught in public schools,” Mr Curtis said. “Just as the theory of evolution is taught as well — in my view regrettably taught in science classes, because I think it’s a theory and not a science.”
Science is made up of theories you ridiculous ass clown. Gravity is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Intelligent Design is a fairy tale that makes unfalsifiable claims and relies on the false dichotomy that any wrinkle in the theory of evolution is necessarily a proof of ID.
The theory of evolution has grown over the last century from Darwin’s original great idea to become the very best explanation we have for the diversity of life in our world. Evolution has weathered a century of constant attempts at falsification (as all truly scientific theories must) and has earned the right to be taught in school science classes.
ID appeared less than two decades ago after the American court system ruled that Creation Science was not science. In this time it has added almost nothing to our knowledge of the natural world, has failed to make falsifiable predictions, and its major arguments (such as Behe’s Irreducible Complexity) have repeatedly failed under scrutiny.
Mr Curtis obviously wouldn’t know legitimate science if you wrapped it around a plank of wood and hit him over his stupid fat head with it.
Mr Curtis said there was a growing acceptance in the Australian electorate that the traditional separation of church and state was not designed to stop Christians becoming involved in the political process.
I agree. As far as I am concerned, Christians can be involved in the political process all they like. As can Pastafarians and Morris Dancers (well, maybe not Morris Dancers). But just as the electorate would quite rightly be concerned if a Pastafarian MP demanded mandatory National Piracy to combat global warming, Christian politicians should not expect to be able to make policy decisions based on the dogma of their particular religious flavor.