Some things are just too stupid for words, but lots of people are emailing me about this fool’s plan.
He wants to enshrine his ignorance in the Nevada constitution.
And he’s a democrat. Gaaaaa. Can we all just point, laugh, and turn our backs on this guy from now on?
So, *that’s* what happened to the Dixiecrats.
-jcr
sexual reproduction “would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur in the evolutionary theory.”
I hadn’t realized that genitals are irreducibly complex too.
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens…
If you don’t understand the laws of probability, all series of chance events are unbelievable.
Of course, there isn’t all that much chance involved in evolution.
Well, my genitals are unbelievable. And generally taken as proof of the existence of a benevolent God.
I hadn’t realized that genitals are irreducibly complex too.
Bollocks are irreducibly complex…well, it’s almost right.
Sounds like this “democrat” is a DINO.
Notice you could remove ‘Darwin’s theory of evolution’, and replace it with just about anything! Science class will become a series of disclaimers – maybe the postmodernists will win after all?
my favorite explanation of extremely low probabilites vs. evolution still occuring was this: Your chances of winning the lottery are so minisculely low that you can guarantee you will never win, the chances just make it impossible. However, someone somewhere still wins the lottery every week.
“Sexual reproduction ‘would require an unbelievable series of chance events that would have had to occur…'” Mainly, this unbelievable dork getting any woman to even date him, let alone reproduce his wrinkled little pea-pods. Oh, wait–he has kids! Must have been a series of immaculate conceptions. Now, that’s believeable.
I presume that even if he gets enough signatures to get this on the ballot, and it got voted in by the fine people of Nevada, a state constitution cannot override the U.S. constitution in a matter of civil rights (14th amendment and all) so it could be tossed out on those grounds.
It’s hilarious and utterly stupefying at the same time.
But, as empty as ID is, it’s, er … well, designed ideally for an initiative referendum campaign. If this gets done in the populous states, the costs will be tens of millions.
I believe that’s exactly the Supreme Court battle the fundies want to try and modify the Constitution. “Under God” in the Pledge is a relitively new political addition also.
They don’t want that battle. A lot of American religious fundamentalism is driven by the belief that the Founders were religious men who did not want a secular state. A Constitutional amendment to codify Christianity in government would be tantamount to an official acknowledgement that they weren’t and they did.
Oh for the love of…
Hey! BROWN!
STOP HELPING!
They don’t want that battle. A lot of American religious fundamentalism is driven by the belief that the Founders were religious men who did not want a secular state. A Constitutional amendment to codify Christianity in government would be tantamount to an official acknowledgement that they weren’t and they did. If the populace was concerned with reason, that would be a powerful argument, yes. But since they’re not, they’ll simply decide that the Founders’ intent has been corrupted since the Constitution was written and a new amendment is needed to make the role of the Christian faith absolutely clear.
I see this as proof that the border with Utah should be redrawn.
This is the best thing I ever saw:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7004909622962894202
I wasn’t surprised by anything in that story until I read that this would-be creationist theocrat is a Democrat. For truth’s sake! Forget pointing and laughing – isn’t there something we can do to kick him out, or at least encourage him to leave? The Democrats are supposed to be the reality-based political party. Wouldn’t he be much happier in a church full of Republicans that will save him from the evil demon of science?
If the populace was concerned with reason, that would be a powerful argument, yes. But since they’re not, they’ll simply decide that the Founders’ intent has been corrupted since the Constitution was written and a new amendment is needed to make the role of the Christian faith absolutely clear.
The American populace, especially its politically-minded portion, is heavily invested in the Constitution. Admitting a change needs to be made in the Constitution is to an American as hard as admitting a change needs to be made in the Bible to a Christian. When we’re talking about a principle that religious fundamentalists are trying to convince the American public was clearly codified into the Constitution, there’s no hope for an amendment.
A lot of American religious fundamentalism is driven by the belief that the Founders were religious men who did not want a secular state.
I think it’s more accurate to say that a lot of American religious fundamentalism is rationalized by the belief that the Founders were religious men who did not want a secular state. Even if it was conclusively proven to the fundies that this scenario is nonsense, I doubt it would change their goals.
Mr. Gibson has the ticket: Call it the “Postmodern Amendment.” Don’t talk about its target, talk about its’ methods. Get some postmodernists to endorse it, with press releases and press conferences.
The Discovery Institute will have to oppose the Postmodern Amendment, of course, as will the Creation Research Society and Institute for Creation Research. Kent Hovind won’t know what to do. Ken Ham will claim it’s not postmodern, but people will suspect he doesn’t know.
I dunno, this guy could be onto something. Did you know a lot of teachers in Nevada don’t even begin class with an explanation that they themselves could merely be hallucinations? How dare they be so arrogant as to not mention this?
“Brown, who has three school-age children, said he’s been interested in evolution for years.”
So I bet he’s read a lot of Gould and Dawkins and Zimmer then!
Head, meet wall, again.
I think it’s more accurate to say that a lot of American religious fundamentalism is rationalized by the belief that the Founders were religious men who did not want a secular state.
That is exactly right. It’s a convenient fiction that soothes those fundamentalists who vaguely recall something about the separation of church and state.
Admitting a change needs to be made in the Constitution is to an American as hard as admitting a change needs to be made in the Bible to a Christian.
Not really. It’s something we take very seriously, but the Constitution has been amended 27 times, and virtually all of our civil liberties are contained in the Amendments. The bill of rights, the abolition of slavery, due process and equal protection, suffrage for blacks, suffrage for women — all of that’s in the Amendments. I would say the feeling of Americans is that the Constitution should be amended only with great care and forethought, not that it shouldn’t be amended.
Hey, the dumber the kids are, the more likely they’ll play the slots.
Even if it was conclusively proven to the fundies that this scenario is nonsense, I doubt it would change their goals.
Oh, I don’t think anything would but victory; the trick is to reduce fundies’ mass support, and portraying them as dangerous radicals who want to abolish one of the Founders’ ten amendments will work.
Not really. It’s something we take very seriously, but the Constitution has been amended 27 times, and virtually all of our civil liberties are contained in the Amendments. The bill of rights, the abolition of slavery, due process and equal protection, suffrage for blacks, suffrage for women — all of that’s in the Amendments. I would say the feeling of Americans is that the Constitution should be amended only with great care and forethought, not that it shouldn’t be amended.
Okay, first, the first ten Amendments, and to a lesser degree the next two, were created by the Founders; you’re already down to 15. Next, the movements that created these 15 amendments did not claim that they had tradition and the Founders on their side, except possibly the ones for the 21st amendment (which repealed an earlier amendment) and the 27th amendment (which was proposed along with the Bill of Rights but took 200 years to ratify). Given that American conservatives scream at liberals for not regarding the Constitution with sufficient esteem, I think it’s logical to expect that a conservative movement to amend the Constitution will be self-defeating.
Well, we’ll see what happens with this one. Nevada and Utah haven’t seemed to be fertile ground for anti-evolutionists lately.
Oh, and you may find this interesting, P.Z.: the Episcopal Bishop of Nevada (Dr. Katherine Jefferts Schori), who’s on the short list to be presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA, is a former oceanographer with an emphasis in — wait for it — “squid and octopuses, including their evolutionary relationships.” Surely this is just further evidence of humanity’s ability to come together in shared love for marine cephalopods.
Evolution is the subject about which the first thought crimes are going to be framed. The Enlightenment roots of the Constitution are being extirpated by the tyranny of the majority, and it stinks for people who think.
The irony is that the know nothings will cause all of America to go backward into a dark age and then they’ll write histories that blame us and our godless, tolerant sin for inspiring the wrath of a fundie god. After all, decadence and decline couldn’t be their fault – they have a direct line to god.
Hmm. Pessimistic today…
Plunge – Loved the video. Invertebrates are great! However, since I refuse to actually watch two and a half hours of an idiot, why is it that when I videogoogle “octopus eats shark” I get not only that video, but a long Kent Hovind lecture? Is he trying to say that since a “lowly” invertebrate can eat a “higher, more evolved, advanced” shark, all of evolutionary theory is out the window?
As much as I’d love to “point, laugh at and ignore this guy”, my biggest fear is that voters will easily pass this… And then it’ll move from state to state. I can see the Republicans using this in states like Ohio, much like they used gay marriage in 2004, to get out the vote.
So, go ahead and laugh at this guy, but not too hard. This could easily result in us swearing in Jeb Bush in Jan 2009.
Honestly, Alon, I’m not debating with you so much as I’m explaining American attitudes, seeing as how I’m an American and all and have lived here all my life. Our attitude to the Constitution is really not like the attitude of Christians to the Bible, which was your original remark. However it may appear to you in your observation station across the world, the idea of amending the Constitution does not elicit horrified gasps from Americans. Not at all.
Given that American conservatives scream at liberals for not regarding the Constitution with sufficient esteem, I think it’s logical to expect that a conservative movement to amend the Constitution will be self-defeating.
Conservatives are anything but logical, but I note that it’s common throughout American politics to enshrine certain aspects of the Constitution as inviolable while proposing Amendments to further explicate certain rights or liberties.
As for modern conservatives, their current enthusiasm for a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage coexists happily with their fervent defense of whatever aspects of the Constitution (imaginary or otherwise) suit their agenda. But of course these people have shit for brains.
“However it may appear to you in your observation station across the world, the idea of amending the Constitution does not elicit horrified gasps from Americans. Not at all.”
I think it does, at least in many areas of the country/partisan sects. We haven’t had that many amendments, and it seems that Congress got especially gun shy after that whole “Prohibition” thing. I’d actually prefer to think that amending the Constitution horrifies people, because I’d rather that be the reason that the ERA has never passed than an actual resistance to codifying that women are people too.
I’d actually prefer to think that amending the Constitution horrifies people, because I’d rather that be the reason that the ERA has never passed than an actual resistance to codifying that women are people too.
It would be nice to think that, but I don’t think it’s true. Do you remember the debate during the ERA ratification process? A common piece of propaganda from the anti-feminists was that if the ERA passed, there would have to be unisex bathrooms. I heard that all the time.
We don’t take amending the Constitution lightly — as I said somewhere above, it’s something only to be undertaken with care and forethought — but we do amend it when necessary. In my lifetime we’ve eliminated the poll tax, changed the presidential succession, lowered the voting age to 18, and limited congressional pay raises.
My point is that the Constitution is a document to be amended carefully, not a sacrosanct text never to be violated, like the Bible. And there’s no getting away from the fact that conservatives are very much in favor of amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. Liberal opposition to this revolves not around the idea that amending the Constitution is abhorrent, but around the idea that such an amendment is exactly counter to the greater spread of liberty that most amendments have embraced. Generally (Prohibition being notable exception) when we’ve amended the Constitution it has been to expand civil liberties, not to restrict them.
“It would be nice to think that, but I don’t think it’s true.”
Yeah, me neither, really. It’s true in my little dream world, but then again, Bush isn’t president in my dream world, either.
I see the point you were making much more clearly now, and certainly agree with it. Of course, the counter-argument will probably be that it is expanding civil liberties to outlaw gay marriage, because that makes the anti-gay league much more comfortable that way, and will make them feel much more free and liberated not having to look at any same-sex legal couples. I think I’ll go back to my dream world now.
Surely you’ve mistated his political affliation? Sounds more like he’s a Demoncrat.