There is an interesting debate going on in St. Petersburg where mayoral candidate Bill Foster is being attacked for his belief in creationism. As Florida’s fourth-largest city, St. Petersburg has tried to attract businesses and industry. His critics claim that high-tech companies are going to get the wrong impression if the Mayor believes that the Earth was created in six days and that man walked with dinosaurs.
Foster once objected to his son being taught evolution in school. Pinellas School Board wanted teaching about alternatives to the theory of evolution, such as the Genesis account and repeated the ridiculous claims that Darwin contributed to the rise of Hitler and the Columbine massacre. We have seen this attack on Darwin by people like Ben Stein and others recently.
Foster, a member of Starkey Road Baptist Church in Seminole, has not backed down from his views during this debate. He insists that Genesis says that the Earth was created in six days and that this is literally true. He argues that man and dinosaurs clearly existed together despite the fact that there is a 60 million year gap between the two species. His proof is that “[d]inosaurs are mentioned in Job, so I don’t have any problem believing that dinosaurs roamed the earth.” Job refers to a “behemoth.”
Foster asks a legitimate question: “How does my knowledge of scientific theory impact my ability to rationally govern the city of St. Petersburg? It’s completely irrelevant.”
When do the radical personal views of a politician become relevant? We have seen Obama, Clinton, and other politicians routinely use their religious views as part of their campaigns. If it is appropriate to use religious views as a positive element in a campaign, it opens the door for its use as a negative element. It is not clear, however, that Foster has used his religious views as part of his campaign. For a prior column, click here.
Foster’s extreme views on education and Darwin may be a concern for citizens given the influence of a mayor on school board policies and candidates. Moreover, do extremist views indicate something about a candidate’s intellect or judgment? Would it be appropriate for a voter to oppose a candidate who belonged to a cult or a controversial faith? What do you think?
For the full story, click here.
Can a crationist be a good mayor? OF COURSE NOT!? How can someone who refuses to belive truth and disregards scientific evidence be trusted to act on the issues in an unbiased manner? If he can rationize his “belief” is more valid than provable evidence then this man is more menace than samaritan. This type of rationalization lead to blacks being deemed 3/5 human in the 1600s and Jews subhuman in the early half of the 20th century. Would he discriminate agaist the athiest because of the “greater good” of doing Gods work despite what’s good for the community? The hypocrisy of these “creationiststs” is astounding, they rush to a hospital(where science is at work everyday) when thier kids are sick or injured but when science doesn’t support thier message they dismiss the science (such as supporting evolution) as only theoretical. If thier belief in God is so strong why aren’t more of these hypocrites self healing or letting God heal thier wounds and illnesses at home? It’s becasue they trully don’t belive the nonsense they preach. It’s a con game and politicians who espouse the religious garbage as truth are just con men playing the game to win elections, truth and justice be damned.
jonolan,
That you cannot distinguish between a mindset (religious belief) and a people (Jews) is hard to believe coming even from you. While all people are created equal, the same cannot be said of ideas or the capabilities of said formulating minds or their particular suitability to a job that requires a certain set of metal skills. That when it comes to ideas you fail to heed the sage words of Marcus Aurelius when it comes to thought is your loss, but not ours as you continually attempt to compare apples and oranges. “This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? What is its causal nature and form? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?”
That’s just good advice. But even more telling are his next words:
“When you rise from sleep with reluctance, remember that it is your constitution and according to human nature to perform social acts, but sleeping is common also to irrational animals.”
The issue is suitability of person for position. The positions in question affect the outcomes of everyone’s life and therefor decisions made from those positions should be made on a rational basis to the benefit the greatest number of people based on fact and reason, not belief and theological conjecture from any camp. Ruling not based on fact is subject not only to abuse but huge increased probability of misadventure. That the atheist would by their nature pose a lesser threat to the Separation Doctrine is of simply a mater of definition. They are what they are and as they are, they interact. One cannot argue without definitions. That you chose to misuse definitions is simply your bad choice in tactic. That atheists bear a label with “negative” religious connotation is unimportant to defining their stance as based on logic and reason – even if you disagree – and that that makes them inherently more suited to the job than someone incapable of using logic when confronted with facts contrary to their “belief” – a common failing among those who feel like God has chosen them personally to run for office. No distortion will change that.
Jonolan,
Maybe, maybe not. Is lobbying for the inclusion of junk science next to a scientific theory with mountains of evidence supporting it in school curriculum equivalent to asking for a change in wording of your individual oath?
I don’t care if the dog catcher is a Young Earth Creationist because I know he’s not in a position to force his beliefs on others. The mayor might well be, and this candidate has shown the inclination to do so.
Jonolan,
I am not condemning or objecting to your avatar; however, could you explain its meaning? I am an old guy and not too ‘hip’ about some modern things or icons.
Thanks
One question: how much influence does the Mayor of St. Petersburg have over school curriculum? If the answer is none, he could believe it’s turtles all the way down and I wouldn’t care. That is, until he brings it up while speaking in his official capacity.
To the Atheists who took such great pains in claiming that their oaths or “affirmations” were and are valid, thank you. You went a long way towards proving my point that the underlying argument was baseless.
Atheists are no more, “by their very natures” incapable of searing a binding oath than a Creationist is incapable of being a good Mayor.
Jonolan,
As an Atheist, I’m really surprised to find that I my oaths aren’t binding. Honestly, how many times in the past 10 years have you been about to lie and then thought “Oh wait, better not lie, God doesn’t like that?” I can say that I have never thought “You know, I could tell the truth here, but since I don’t believe in God, I’ll just lie instead.”
I’d say more people would stop themselves from lying under oath because they’re afraid of the legal consequences than because of their fear and trembling over some higher being.
Morality is separate from belief in a god. The only people who tell you otherwise are trying to convince you that you need their religion.
I would love to think that this person’s creationist beliefs have no bearing on his performance as Mayor, but I have to agree that creationism is a ruse created by the far right to push evolution in particular, and scientific reasoning in general, out of the mainstream. If this indidividual believes in creationism,he believes that the Bible is more important than man’s rule of law on Earth. While he is free to think that, he can’t do his job as Mayor thinking that.
Jonolan,
As an atheist, I never swore on the bible, past about age 20/21. I always ‘affirmed’. When I say the Pledge of Allegiance—even as an Army veteran—I leave out the “under god” section.
In addition, I am almost certain* that no court of law can force you to swear an allegiance to god before you testify. (*unsure about the bible-belt courts, such as Texas’and the deep South!)
This raises an interesting point. How often do lawyers hear someone say in court before testimony that they ‘affirm’ to state the truth and also do not place their hand on a bible. Is it rare?
Insisting upon one’s own set of facts based on that which is not demonstrable disqualifies one from rational debate, much less elected office.
Look, for 8 years our govt was slowly peeled apart by wholly inadequate people with “degrees” from places like Liberty University.
If we do not insist on the most rational, most grounded, most enthusiastic people to lead us, we will continue to get exactly what we had under W: a deliberate disassembly of our democratic institutions for theocratic/oligarchical purposes.
One would reflect, for instance, that the crusader war led by the knights who say “Xe!” continues unabated through this moment…
Buddha,
What you’re trying to pass off as an argument is little more than diatribe against theists in general and Fundamental Christians in specific.
“By there very nature?” I’ve hard that argument before. It was directed at Blacks, at Jews, at a number of groups over over the years in fact.
If that argument had any validity, Atheists wouldn’t be allowed to hold any office, serve in the military, be witnesses in trials, or anything else that required taking an oath. “By their very nature” they lack the capacity to swears a binding oath since they do not accept any higher power or objective morality. 😉
bobxxx:
You can use the toilets they clean–not me.
All creationists are uneducated morons, and they are only qualified to clean toilets.
Can a creationist be a good mayor? Can a believer in the divinity Zeus or Thor be a good mayor? Of course they can, why would their ideas on how the universe works be relevant to how they perceive today’s reality. Why can’t you split a chicken and read it’s entrails to make municipal policy. All ideas are equal! I say comb the insane asylums to form a political party to run these people… er, … sorry, I guess we already have that.
Ditto on what the Buddha said.
Time to stop building our villages around the village idiots, and pretend it’s OK. It’s not OK.
Good God, could even God be a good mayor? But there would be somebody that would challenge the birth as I don’t think that they kept records at that time. Not sure, I was not there.
But then again, some people would bitch if they were being hung with a new rope. Oh well, when we all go to hell, we will be amongst friends.
jonolan,
There is nothing nonsensical about an argument or question pertaining to a person’s ability to perform the job. That the examples you choose are polar opposites illustrates this point perfectly in that atheism comports perfectly with the idea of government as disinterested third party in religious matters because atheism by it’s very nature would discourage “belief” based reasoning in an individual whereas a Creationist/Fundamentalists by their nature can rarely if ever disengage their “belief” from factual analysis and fact based decision making – the very form function of secular government. I’m pretty sure one’s ability to make decisions based on reality versus belief is an important criteria in selecting a candidate. To that end, their beliefs and how they arrived at them are a perfect subject to help determine how they’ll handle fact based decision making. This has the value of examining the evidence in a mirror and should also be taken into account with direct evidence of their ability to use fact instead of belief as the criteria.
But nonsensical it isn’t.
Can a Creationist be a good Mayor? That’s a lot like asking if an Atheist can be a good Mayor – a nonsensical argument and/or question.
“Moreover, do extremist views indicate something about a candidate’s intellect or judgment?”
Yes. That’s their intellect or judgment is questionable. This question does not speak solely to good judgment or intellect proper but should be a significant factor in evaluating a candidate’s fitness for office especially if said candidate cannot make a reasoned and – more importantly – rational argument as to how they arrived at said questionable judgment(s). This is no different than if you found out a candidate was involved in some other activity that speaks poorly to their judgment such as being a victim multiple times of a confidence crime or belonging to NAMBLA. That someone’s judgment is questionable means nothing more than it should be questioned. Their competence as leadership stands or falls in their ability to answer said questions. To this end, how each individual evaluates competence is different as well. What may be a perfectly reasonable explanation to me may seem out in left field to another and vice versa. Keep this in mind: No human who has ever lived has gone the span of their life without an irrational belief of some sort, from some perspective. Take for example some of the religious dietary restrictions like the Jewish and Muslim prohibition on pork. It made perfect sense in the time before antibiotics and refrigeration. Today? Not so much, but many still choose to follow that “irrational” belief out of tradition. Since this “irrational” belief impacts NO ONE but the believer, it’s irrelevant to their ability to hold office. If, however, the “irrational” belief in question was that women are absolute chattel (and there are both Christian and Muslim sects who believe this very thing), an irrational belief that is not only wrong but unconstitutional? Yeah, that’s a very good reason from keeping them out of office.
If you spot a candidate with an irrational belief, you are not just well within your rights to question them about it, you are well advised to take the responses you get (or DON’T get) that don’t jibe with your REASONED perception of reality into consideration when debating a candidates fitness for office. To this end, an open creationist likely fails unless he is capable of leaving his faith’s “beliefs” at home when dealing with the (what should ideally be) factually based operation of government. In my experience, most zealots who have gone that far away from reason and empirical evidence are NOT capable of separating their religion from any activity. It’s their (a) crutch. They need the lies they tell themselves to function in the face of their fear(s).
“Would it be appropriate for a voter to oppose a candidate who belonged to a cult or a controversial faith?”
Absolutely. We have a Separation Doctrine and keeping government out of religion is only half the equation to protecting religious liberty for all. The other half is keeping “aggressive” religions out of government that seek to impose their beliefs on others by manipulating the mechanisms of state. C St. and The Family, that was directed SPECIFICALLY at you lot of Christian zealots. I will not vote for any member of a death cult be they Fundamentalist Christians with their Apocalypse worship or the worshipers of Mictlantecuhtli – the Aztec god of death.
Why?
Because death worshipers are either insane or the pawns of the insane. It’s that simple.
Granted, one should rightly be skeptical of the intelligence of a person, especially a politician, who aspouses these ridiculous creationist spewings. However, idiotic notions by themselves do not disqualify a person from running nor from holding an elective office. After an election, there many ways to remove or censure a politician if their behavior in office violates laws.