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.
I will reiterate my earlier statement, this thread is a blow-out and not worth the effort, I will try again with something else that I find stimulating..
lil billy boy,
You can be an ass with or without education. You can also be an ass at any age. Let us find out more. Please keep going sir.
George, psychology is not a “parlor game”. I am eminently qualified to discuss most aspects of human behavior due to my theoretical and experiential background in this discipline. I don’t feel you should try, coincidentally I was finished with grad school many years ago, thanks for making me feel so spry!
billy,
How old are you? I am in my 60s. Are you in your 20s or 30s? I only ask because we all know how important experience is in any profession. Now, age does not definitively confer competency, of course not; however, it is one gauge among others to evaluate one’s position on a topic.
Thanks.
He may be a “theocratic ass”, beacuse he believes in creation should not be a disqualifier from holding public office!
Buddha, “who” claims that religion and Christianity is “irrational” save you. I don’t believe you are making the existential leap, in an attempt to proclaim that anyone who believes in religion is “irrational”. If this is the foundation of your argument it is over before it has started. I presume any public official, unless he proclaims atheism as his/her religion would then be unqualified to hold public office, due to there belief in fairy tales…..
By the way, did you miss where he was trying to force his views into local government despite warnings from superiors?
That’s the second reason your boy isn’t fit to be Mayor.
He’s a theocratic jackass.
George, when you have a graduate degree in the discipline of psychology and have an experiential background of thirteen years as a counselor and social worker you can make statements like me, with some certainty. Especially as they relate to the field of behavioral science. You can’t and shouldn’t try..
Government is by necessity the realm of the actual. As such, it must be dealt with in a fashion consistent with reason and evidence. If one has a demonstrated inability to align an internal “belief” with the facts of the physical world, that is a demonstration that said person has a weakness in the area of critical thought. If government is the realm of the rational and evidence based methods REQUIRED to keep us all alive, then it follows that the ones most qualified for those jobs are those with the greatest capacity for abstract thought and logic. Belief in the irrational (be it religious in nature or just garden variety nuts) is an indicator of unfittness for office. Creationists demonstrate that very absence of critical thought. Unless ignorance is an attractive trait in a leader . . . but I’m guessing you’re a Bush guy all the way, Lil Billy.
Budha, you have not sufficiently answered my question. You claim that the posts were cogent, I disagree. You claim Foster(?) is a reflection of people who believe in creationism, because he alluded to Hitler in some bird-brained speech. I think you write beautifully, but you need to present better than that if you wanna take me on senor!
billy,
You come off as a know-it-all grad student type who thinks he knows everything because he happens to study psychology and how people think. You throw out terms from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders as if it were the Bible and that everyone should understand the publication and the enclosed disorders. If they don’t, you conclude, they are an idiot (a nice defense mechanism that always leaves you “on top” in your own mind — notice how you never lose an argument, unless you are really called out on it?).
This publication, the DSM, it is good to know, is not without criticism. In fact, it classified homosexuality as a disorder until 1974. I’m not throwing out the merit of the of the index, but I am cautioning you against using — and your less than full understanding of psychology — as a panacea to answer every question posed here and challenge anyone who hold a different opinion.
I am not going to personally attack you by speculating on your personal life or your childhood — both of which I could do with shocking precision.
Your manner has made commenting on subjects here less fun. And, frankly, I come here for fun, and to learn a little something from smart people, like Professor Turley and the others that post here.
Lastly, if you are training for clinical work, your should know that your know-it-all, arrogant attitude will not serve you well when working with patients that need help.
George
You very well may be qualified, I read your posts, you are all brilliant or borderline brilliant writers, buddha writes exceptionally well, I don’t necesasarily agree with his philosophical position but I recognize talent. Mespo and Federal LLEO and Appleton and Mike S. All you guys impress me, really you do. This was a pretty weak thread, beyond weak. In order for me to get revved up, I need to find something worth getting revved up for. Hope I spelled revved up right.
Vapid.
Is that the best you’ve got?
Run along now, Lil’ Billy.
And you should consider a more appropriate nick.
Like “chihuahua” or “anklebitter1”.
“rabid_gerbil” perhaps.
“billy” is an insult to William’s throughout history gauged upon your absolutely stellar, um, no, spectacular? no, no, that’s not it . . . dismal – that’s the word! DISMAL performance.
D-I-S-M-A-L
My cats argue better than you and they have a one word vocabulary. Yet with that one word they can convey more meaning and nuance than you with your “style” of debate. You come on back any time you feel froggy about taking me apart in a debate, sport. Or anyone else here for that matter. You’re amateur night all the way. What you call argument and debate?
Pssst . . . it’s really just you embarrassing yourself.
So unless you’ve got something more substantial than “vapid”? “Vapid” isn’t an argument. It’s an OPINION. That might mean something if you’d proven you can actually reason in a rudimentary fashion, but sorry, you won’t be advancing to Final Jeopardy.
Perhaps a game more in line with your demonstrated skill.
You strike me as a future champion.
Start again, why should creationists’ be barred from holding public office. I read your contention, it is not worth discussing…………..
Okay, let’s all try to get back on the topic of creationism.
billy, I just did not understand your inconsistency. None of us is qualified to discuss the potential causes online.
Survival in the courtroom means “spread as much manure as possible” and hope the boobcatchers buy it! The boobcathchers of course being the jury…
Being bipolar and passive aggressive are unrelated mental health issues. Please quit while you are behind slickone, you are seriously exposing your ignorance on this matter..
I though you were real sharp, I over estimated you…..
I think you are proving your own undoing lil billy. Bipolar as you are, I don’t think you see, your thought process is passive aggressive. That I know well. Its called survival in the courtroom.
Buddha, I have read the positions presented, believe they are not only not “cogent”, they border on the laughable…..