Sarah Palin's Nutty Creationism
Famed curmudgeon Christopher Hitchens confesses that, in his never-ending quest as a contrarian, he misjudged Sarah Palin when "rather feebly" giving her the benefit of a doubt last summer.
Writing for Slate, the repentant Hitchens is now urging his media brethren to boycott coverage of Palin in the final days of the 2008 campaign until she agrees to hold a full-scale press conference.
It is a provocative, albeit fantastical, suggestion. The political press corps couldn't organize a well-run baby shower, much less a boycott of a national political figure.
Still, I particularly like his dissection of Palin's stance on the wisdom of teaching creationism alongside evolution in the schools.
I've touched on the Fred-Flintstone-was-alive-at-the-same-time-as-dino issue before. Here is the Hitchens take:
The problem with Gov. Palin is not that she lacks experience. It's that she quite plainly lacks intellectual curiosity. It is not snobbish to harbor grave doubts about somebody who seems uninterested in reading for pleasure or recreation and whose only interest in her local public library is sniffing round its shelves for books that ought to be removed for expressing impure ideas.
Nor is it snobbish, let alone sexist, to express doubts about someone who, as late as March 2007, could tell Alaska Business Monthly, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place." This statement deserves to be called mindless, because, first, it is made up of stale and received and overheard bits and bobs from everyday media babble and, second, because you cannot really coherently say that you support both the administration and an "exit plan."
The same vaguely cunning wish to have everything both ways is to be found in her suggestion that both evolution and creationism be taught in our schools. In one way, this seems fair enough—if the Scopes trial is taught in history class, then the views of William Jennings Bryan and those of Clarence Darrow and H.L. Mencken must necessarily be given equal time. But that is not the same as saying that classes in biology or geology be diluted by instruction in what is laughably called "intelligent design." It would be like giving equal time to alchemy and astrology. "You know, don't be afraid of information," as she so winningly phrased it in a gubernatorial debate. "Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
I would like to ask her whether by this she means that creationism ought to be given equal time in science classes. And I have a follow-up: How many years old does the Republican nominee for the vice presidency of the United States believe the Earth to be?
There are several other questions I would like to ask her, as, no doubt, would you. Lots of luck with that, because it seems that the Grand Old Party intends to go all the way to Election Day without exposing the No. 2 person on its ticket—the person who would become chief executive if President John McCain succumbed to illness—to a press conference.
Lots of luck, indeed.
Tags: presidential election 2008 | running mates | religion | evolution | Sarah Palin
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (29) | Print
Reader Comments
Palin is no conservative
Sarah Palin is indicative of just how nutty the entire GOP has become.
Palin, like most modern Republicans, is not a Goldwater-esque conservative. She is closer to an evangelical dominionist -- out to set up the U.S. government as an instrument of "God's dominion" on Earth. Those folks compete for attention in the Republican Party with devotees of Ayn Rand's objectivist movement -- which is an ideology so radical that its followers are opposed to outlawing child labor.
Compared to the right wing of today, the Goldwater conservatives of years past were pretty darned tame -- and sane. I sure wish conservatives would make a come-back to replace the radicals who have taken over the GOP.
to Gary of OH
While you think your questions to be clever, you reveal ignorance on your own behelf. Although I cannot address each question, here are a couple of things to help answer 7 out of 9:
Your quesion: Ask Gov. Palin about the details surrounding her Pentecostal faith and to clarify why she stands on altars with witch doctors. --- Well Gary, Pentecostals do not believe in "witch doctors." They are Christian Protestants, similar to Lutherans, Unitarians, Baptists, Epsicopals, etc.
Your question: Ask her if she believes that being gay can be cured through prayer. -- Palin's view, as she told us in her debate with Biden is that she recognizes gay civil union, but not marriage because her religion teaches her that a church-recognized marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. Joe Biden agreed.
Your question: Ask her to release her husband Todd's divorce papers. -- Why is that our business? Would you make public every crisis in your relationships?
Your question: Ask to see the medical records from when Trig was born. -- Where are you going with this? Are you suggesting he is from aliens?
Your question: Ask her about her numerous lies, from the bogus Bridge to Nowhere claim and the bogus Sudan divestment claim to the bogus claim about selling her private jet on ebay. -- These are not "bogus" as any amount of research will reveal.
Your question: Ask her why "family values" don't work in her own family. -- Anyone can tell what a close knit family they are by how they interract with each other. The fact that her daughter had pre-marital sex is a mistake many teenagers make. (Did you?) And, speaking as a parent, no matter how attentive we are to teaching our children right from wrong they are bound to make mistakes. The real showing of "family values" is how you help them DEAL with those mistakes, which Palin has done a fine job with.
Your question: Ask her how she can possibly stand up for women's rights when she's so vehemently opposed to a core women's issue—of choice. -- Your statement is sexist. Of course not all women believe in pro-choice! And, f.y.i, an embryo is formed by a woman AND A MAN! Therefore, BOTH men and women need to decide for themselves which side to take. Often the decision (as it seems in Palin's case) comes from a sense of family values and a Christian belief system.
Farrells comments
Mr.Farrell aparently went to some type of college I would assume. The first thing I would like him to do is explain his definition of Socialism? The second thing is why he believes in a man that believes this country fails at everything and supports our enemies? Third: Perhaps Mr. Farrell can explian something in the creation of human DNA. It takes a left handed and a right handed protien to complete the creation. Scientists have been creating left and right handed proteins for years butthey can only create the seperately. They have discovered that in order to make left and right at the same time, they need a left handed to make a right handed and a right handed to make a left handed at the same time. So scientfically which came first the Chicken or the egg. I am sure there is a plausible explanation that Mr. Farrell cam give.
advertisement
