For as long as this blog has been around, Bobby Jindal has been a source of controversy in the comment threads. Should South Asian Americans support him because he is an undisputedly intelligent politician and desi like us, or is it okay to turn our backs on him because we fundamentally disagree with his policies and the type of America that he represents? Both answers are of course correct, depending upon what matters most to you as an individual voter.
When the media reports on a political stories there is nothing they enjoy more than a stark contrast between two people or viewpoints. That is one of the reasons that the Obama-McCain race is generating such excitement this year. Almost everyone (except maybe Nader supporters) believes that Obama and McCain have a very divergent vision for the next four year. Because of a law working its way through the Louisiana legislative process right now, the next few weeks will also provide us with an incisive look into the mind and soul of Bobby Jindal. Will he govern according to his religious beliefs or according to accepted scientifc fact? Whether or not he is chosen as McCain’s running mate this year, one thing seems clear: eventually he will be on a national ticket.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Sunday that Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal “would be far and away the best candidate” to appear on the Republican presidential ticket with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
Gingrich, who appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” heaped praise upon the former congressman, saying that he is a “spectacular” governor and predicted that Jindal would be a presidential candidate in the future. [Link]
<
p>
As the New York Times reported two weeks ago, there is a proposed law working its way through the Louisiana legislature right now that is going to stick with Jindal, for better or for worse, for a very long time.
In the Legislature, the climate for a conservative Christian agenda is warmer than in years. Some of that agenda, including a school voucher program for New Orleans that Mr. Jindal calls a “scholarship plan,” is being pushed vigorously by the governor. On other parts, like a bill favored by Christian conservatives that opponents say is a stalking horse for teaching creationism, Mr. Jindal has been well in the background, though legislators say they think the governor would sign it, as he has raised doubts about evolution. [Link]
<
p>The Louisiana Science and Education Act is nothing but a thinly-veiled attempt to allow the arguments of Creationism to be taught in Louisiana schools alongside evolution. This in a state that already has some of the worst school systems in the country.
<
p>Every lawmaker in Louisiana knows that Jindal supports Creationist ideas. The problem he has is trying to sign these proposals into law in Louisiana without seriously hurting his national appeal among Independents. He is navigating this issue in two specific ways. First, he is studiously avoiding the spotlight when he can:
Still, for a governor whose campaign in 2003 ran radio advertisements extolling the Ten Commandments and attacking liberals, the approach has been studiously low-key and nonideological. Mr. Jindal himself has been nearly invisible at the Capitol, lawmakers and Louisiana reporters say.
Hot-button terms and issues are avoided. Cloning will not get state financing but also will not be criminalized, and Mr. Jindal is nowhere to be seen on the Louisiana Science Education Act, which promotes “open and objective discussion” in the schools of “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”
A hearing for the bill last week was packed with Christian advocates — it has already passed the State Senate unanimously — and it was proposed to its legislative sponsor by a Louisiana Family Forum member. Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and a critic of the bill, testified that it was “designed to permit teaching intelligent design creationism in Louisiana public schools,” though there was no mention of creationism or intelligent design in the bill. [Link]
The second strategy Jindal is using is to cleverly manipulate the public’s understanding of the law. A perfect example is this interview he gave on CBS’ Face the Nation
this past Sunday. Unless you are well-versed in the manipulation tactics used by Intelligent Designers, whose “educational approach” was soundly thrashed in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, you might think he is making a perfectly reasonable argument in favor of science here:
REID: Let me make a sharp turn here to a different issue, an issue that has raised some controversy. Now, you were a biology major in college. I think you had a double major. But you were a biology major, and you support the teaching of intelligent design in schools. Do you have doubts about the theory of evolution?Gov. JINDAL: A couple of things. One, I don’t think this is something the federal or state government should be imposing its views on local school districts. You know, as a conservative I think government that’s closest to the people governs best. I think local school boards should be in a position of deciding the curricula and also deciding what students should be learning. Secondly, I don’t think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent.
<
p>REID: But how about you personally? Where do you stand personally on the issue?
<
p>Gov. JINDAL: As a parent, when my kids go to schools, when they go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to be able to make decisions for themselves. I want them to see the best data. I personally think that the life, human life and the world we live in wasn’t created accidentally. I do think that there’s a creator. I’m a Christian. I do think that God played a role in creating not only earth, but mankind. Now, the way that he did it, I’d certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don’t want them to be–I don’t want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness. The way we’re going to have smart, intelligent kids is exposing them to the very best science and let them not only decide, but also let them contribute to that body of knowledge. That’s what makes the scientific process so exciting. You get to go there and find facts and data and test what’s come before you and challenge those theories.
This is the new “strategy” that has been adopted by ID-ers. They want to say that putting creationist ideas next evolution and letting kids decide is a better way to do science. You notice how he uses the phrase “facts or theories or explanations withheld?” This is pure manipulation. He is frightening people into thinking that education is being denied to their children. In fact, there are no facts or even theories associated with ID/Creationist ideas. Knowing that their strategy won’t work if they single out evolution alone, the ID/Creationists needed to find another scientific theory to lump together with evolution so that they could say, “see we aren’t just picking on evolution.” Global warming provided the perfect second issue (another wedge issue). NPR’s Science Friday last Friday did a great job of deconstructing the manipulating tactics being used by the Intelligent Design community. Bobby Jindal is following the script laid out for him perfectly. You have to admit he speaks well.
In a letter last week to Louisiana Speaker of the House Jim Tucker, the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s CEO and the publisher of Science magazine Alan I. Leshner wrote of the “Louisiana Science Education Act”:
The bill implies that particular theories are controversial among scientists, including evolution. But there is virtually no controversy about evolution among the overwhelming majority of researchers. The science of evolution underpins all of modern biology and is supported by tens of thousands of scientific studies in fields that include cosmology, geology, paleontology, genetics and other biological specialties. It informs scientific research in a broad range of fields such as agriculture and medicine, work that has an important impact on our everyday lives.
Backers of the bill, including the Louisiana Family Forum and the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, are longtime supporters of attempts to teach creationism or intelligent design as science. The judicial courts have ruled that both of these are religious concepts that do not belong in public school science classrooms. In fact, it was Louisiana’s own “creation science” law that the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 1987. [Link]
<
p>Much of the press and blogosphere think they discovered that Jindal once performed an exorcism this week. In fact, Manish reported it here almost four years ago as further evidence of Jindal’s extreme religious views.
<
p>My cousin Manan also forwarded me this article today, a long interview of Jindal in Details magazine. In it they re-cap his entire history and explain how he became a conservative Christian in the first place. Reading it will provide good context in which to evaluate his current support of Creationism is classrooms.
So as we wait to see if McCain taps Jindal we have to figure out which Jindal we’d get. The articulate and intelligent and accomplished Jindal or the one that would advocate exorcising our educational system of reason.
I’d bet it’s a pretty tight fit. I’ll see if I can find some #’s. But, yes, there is an endogeneity problem! I’m pretty sure I don’t know any creationists, and if one of my friends claimed to be one, I’d think s/he was putting me on–perhaps that’s why I’m so utterly convinced that Jindal’s pandering on this. I guess I live in bubble.
143 · irony is the new black said
heard it all? this is old-school. the value-neutrality within the first amendment does not rely on relativism , but rather on the idea that the state should not be used to declare such truths. better to leave it up to the free marketplace of ideas. the structural problems inherent in the alternative, notably the use of the state to suppress unpopular opinions, make this best of all the bad choices, as liberal realists would put it.
152 · Manju said
“irony…” can speak for themselves but, I don’t quite see your point. The state is not declaring any truths. The state is only complying with truth which is that ID/creationism is not science and therefore does not merit inclusion in science textbooks. This insistence has nothing to do with the popularity of the truth-claims of ID/creationism.
153 · sagar said
the point is freedom of press prevents the state from determinig what goes into a science textbook. this principle however, runs up against the establishment clause when you’re talking about teaching science in public (not private) schools; in which case the state is allowed to get involved in the name of preventing an establishment of religion.
jindals school voucher program would reslove this clash by giving the $$ directly to the parents, allowing the schools to use whatever textbooks they please (as is their constitutional right), and since no one is forced to attend those schools, there is no establishment violation and SCOTUS does not have to get involved by declaring what is acceptable science and what is not.
There are plenty of references to a negative correlation between belief in creationism and education/income. Not sure what the strength of the correlation is though. But if you’re worried about your kid’s science textbook having creationism in it, I’d actually be far more worried that your kid is going to school with a bunch of (hat-tip Razib) ‘tards.
Local schools should have the authority to teach what they want, right or wrong, as they are funded by local taxes.
On the other hand, vouchers are a joke. It will bring in bullies, thugs and trouble makers into private schools and interfere with the education of kids from decent families.
However, I support this man Jindal. Too many Indians retain their socialist brainwashing even after coming here; it is good to see capitalists like Jindal get stage.
150 · Manju said
Got a problem thinking rationally? How do you “concede” a point that you have never objected to?
This is pathetic. Try and think a little before posting: is libertarianism far more tolerant than the current culture or not??
well you said: “What the hell made you presume that there are not enough racists to keep such schools in business??” but now you say “racist school like that would not be tolerated by the American culture of today.” so either you where talking about some imaginary future in the first sentence or you just contradicted yourself.
not necessarily. libertarianism wouldn’t erase Americas racism taboo anymore than it would reverse the incest one. in fact, racism (unlike incest) is legal today and one is allowed to create a racist school if one wishes. but yet they don’t. so i fail to see how a pure libertarian school system (one in which there are only private schools) would miraculously increase the amount of racist schools.
154 · Manju said
why “in the name of”…? It would definitely be establishment of religion, were creationism taught in science curricula.
I haven’t gone through the text of the bill, but it seems the school voucher program gives scholarships to kids to attend private school. That’s fine. The other bit about allowing schools to chose textbooks can and should be challenged in SCOTUS, if it turns out that these textbooks peddle non-scientific theories as scientific, regardless of whether the school has chosen the textbook. If the school is public, obviously the state has a responsibility to ensure the establishment clause etc. If the school is private — and I’m not a lawyer, so don’t know the legalese — there must be some way of challenging the peddling of religious theories as science, if my kids go to that school.
159 · sagar said
well, if govt funds go toward the private school you may have a case, but that’s iffy. in short, its a free country. if you don’t like it you don’t have to send your kids there. the way to challenge untrue speech is with true speech, not with the court system. hell, you can deny the holocaust here. thats what america’s all about.
158 · Manju said
Oh come on you cant be that thick. Its pretty obvious that the first statement was regarding your baseless presumption that in a future/hypothetical libertarian system racist schools would not survive; while the second was about the current reality. There was no contradiction there. Your irrationality is confusing you.
Its amazing that you cannot see how a libertarian culture that is tolerant (by definition) of racism or any other group-ism would produce more racist schools than a culture that is intolerant of racism.
158 · Manju said
Oh come on you cant be that thick. Its pretty obvious that the first statement was regarding your baseless presumption that in a future/hypothetical libertarian system racist schools would not survive; while the second was about the current reality. There was no contradiction there. Your irrationality is confusing you.
Its amazing that you cannot see how a libertarian culture that is tolerant (by definition) of racism or any other group-ism would produce more racist schools than a culture that is intolerant of racism.
Apparently yes from your incessant mindless garbage posts.
LOL. that was a good comeback. but i still imagine you with cross-eyes and buck-teeth. LOL.
.
actually no. your first statement was about the amount of racists there are in society today. and if we where to switch to a libertarian schools system, they would keep the racist schools in biz. you made no claim that a libertarian system would increase the amount of racists in our society as you are trying to claim now. you contradicted yourself and made my point for me.
libertarianism classic liberalism if you will, is not so much a culture as system of government and it does allow for societal taboos. its deeply entwined within our current system. as you know, racists schools are permitted here in the US and hate speech as well as hate groups enjoy first amendment free speech and free association rights. so i fail to see how a private school system would suddenly increase the amount af racists in our culture wehn they are more or less legally tolerated as is.
manju, why the hell are you responding to the troll??? you know what it is.
IQ vs. biblical literalism education vs. biblical literalism who believes in evolution i who believes in evolution ii
from the last post: Of course it’s not surprising that smarter people are more likely to believe in evolution, but the difference is pretty extraordinary. Only 15% of people with Wordsum 10 disbelieve in evolution (although it’s a pretty small sample size), while a whopping 57% of people with Wordum 6 (which is the average score) disbelieve in evolution.
so yes, class, education, etc. rob is right, in the USA creationism is a populist revolt against reason….
btw, the previous links will make it clear: evolution vs. creation is not a religious vs. atheist issue. yes, almost all atheists accept evolution, but atheists are only a small proportion of those who accept that humans evolved from non-humans. a much more extensive separation occurs along socioeconomic lines; but, as i have stated, most people who accept/believe in evolution don’t know anything about evolutionary theory. from personal communication it’s pretty clear that most with non-science, and even non-life science, backgrounds have lamarckian inclinations and/or conflate descent with modification and natural selection with social darwinistic models (though the social darwinistic ideas are ironically only applied in non-human contexts!).
clearly, any human that’s dumb enough to believe in religion cannot share a common ancestor with smart godless creatures such as apes, dogs, and lizards.
smart godless creatures such as apes, dogs, and lizards.
only the fool hath said in his heart that the beast does not believe….
You’ve violated our comment policy dozens of times on a single thread. If you aren’t intelligent enough to leave comments without hurling personal insults then please don’t bother commenting.
160 · Manju said
clap. clap. sure thing, private entities can whatever they want, as long as public money is not used to endorse such nonsense as creationism/ID, I’m not too bothered. These ID/creationism folks will be marginalized anyway.
Did anyone else notice the brilliant preemptive move by the Vatican shortly before the Mars Phoenix lander gathered its first soil sample to test for evidence of water/extra-terrestrial life forms? The Vatican Astronomer announced such life is not incongruous with the teachings of the Church.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/14/news/vat.php
“the way to challenge untrue speech is with true speech”
we should remember that
1) this is a school classroom, not a protest
2) teaching secondary education level science is not a situation where students critical examine cutting edge hypotheses and theories, but rather a review and inculcation of orthodox consensus and established science (which might prepare them for course of study in science at the university level).
i think the speech vs. speech model is probably most apt for cases where two individuals are arguing over debatable issues or have different norms, but share ultimate ends in some way. that might beg the question re: the holocaust, but if i encountered a holocaust denier that wouldn’t suggest to me that i should start talking to them about the evidence for the holocaust, just as if i met someone who claimed the earth was flat would prompt a lecture as to why the earth is a sphere; some beliefs are indications of serious mental problems and malfunctions which aren’t going to be ameliorated by counter-speech. someone doesn’t deny the holocaust because of a careful weighting of the evidence, they just hate the The J00z, and the issues are way upstream of the holocaust.
in regards to creationism, the issue is a particular subculture which validates ideas and models which are at sharp variance with the scientific culture of the past 150 years. my own personal experience with people in this subculture is that the best wedge isn’t to argue in favor of evolution, you can’t explain evolutionary science in a series of discussions, it takes reading textbooks and pouring over papers. or, it takes a trust in the mainstream culture of science. these individuals don’t trust that culture. but, they do trust the intellectuals of their own subculture, so people like francis collins, an evangelical who accepts evolution, are nice ways of breaking the associations and reconciling them with science. or, most evangelical protestants have a very soft spot for st. augustine, who thank god is on the record arguing against naive literalist readings of the genesis story. he was a creationists as we’d understand it, but there were evolutionary ideas in circulation during antiquity and he clearly saw them as plausible ideas which could be reconciled with christian revelation.
In fairness to the Vatican, they have been moving toward evolution and away from Intelligent Design for some time now.
Can anyone provide links to anything Jindal himself wrote (I mean something like an article -not a news report) rather than others quoting him out of the context or interpreted what he said on evolution/creationism? I am a catholic and I’ve read some of his articles, and my impression is that he has a very good understanding of catholicism (his conversion was certainly after much thought), so I cannot believe that he supports literal creationism as is portrayed here and elsewhere. As noted in one of the comments here, his position on abortion is pretty much a catholic position, so why should his views on evolution be any different?
And oh razib, I think you might have misunderstood Cardinal Schornborn, his position is not any different from the catholic position. His book “Chance or purpose? – creation, evolution and a rational faith” is perfectly in line with the general catholic thought. He is all for evolution as a science and supports valuable work done by honest researchers. For him, literal creationism-reading the first chapter of the Holy Bible as literal report of events-cannot be an acceptable theological position (after all truths cannot contradict each other). But when evolution moves from its legitimate scientific realm to being a philosophy of life with a meaningless/purposeless view of life, with all the other moral chaos that comes with it, he disagrees.
yes.
Speaking of science and religion in the public sphere… Anyone seen this data on Indian scientists?
The largest-ever nationwide survey of Indian scientists shows that many are as comfortable with seeking the blessings of the resident Hindu God at Tirupati before a space rocket launch as they are with embracing stem cell research and the theory of evolution.
The study, “Worldviews and Opinions of Scientists in India,” which was released at the United Nations in New York on June 5, was conducted by Professors Ariela Keysar and Barry A. Kosmin of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture (ISSSC) of Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, U.S., with assistance from the Centre for Inquiry India. It sampled 1,100 participants from 130 universities and research institutes in India between July 2007 and January 2008. It is believed to be the first major study of the beliefs of scientists from outside the Judeo-Christian Western tradition.
The respondents, all of whom hold doctorates, are representative of the burgeoning elite among India’s more than 4 million science, medical and technology professionals. Professor Kosmin explained that “India was chosen because of its increasing scientific and economic importance on the global scene. How Indian scientists view the world and the values they hold are of increasing significance given the current prominence of Indian-trained science professionals in so many countries.”
Only 8% of the scientists said they would refuse to work on stem cell research because of moral or religious beliefs, yet, 41% approved “strongly” or “somewhat” seeking the blessing of Lord Venkateswara at Tirupati before launching a rocket and satellite in 2005.
http://www.trincoll.edu/secularisminstitute/
Abhi on June 17, 2008 11:00 PM ·Can anyone provide links to anything Jindal himself wrote (I mean something like an article -not a news report) rather than others quoting him out of the context or interpreted what he said on evolution/creationism? yes.
Abhi, I have seen that one before. It is not about his views on evolution.
gm. Well said. Sometimes I wonder if the evangelical American Christians do actually read the Bible. The Bible has many contradictions and false prophets abound. For every rule in the Bible there is an alternative rule.
yes. every rickshaw puller wants to send his kid to a ‘convent’ school. The market is a fantastic arbiter.
I wonder if Piyush thinks that all his Hindu relatives will burn in hell?
I wonder if he’ll visit the ancient Christian churches of India?
why does it matter? authenticity is irrelevant. his value system is equally dangerous whether it is authentic or inauthentic. no more bush.
here you go. there’s also video here.
[L]et’s talk about intelligent design. I’m a biology major. That’s my degree. The reality is there are a lot of things that we don’t understand. There’s no theory in science that could explain how, contrary to the laws of entropy, you could create order out of chaos. There’s no scientific theory that explains how you can create organic life out of inorganic matter. I think we owe it to our children to teach them the best possible modern scientific facts and theories. Teach them what different theories are out there for the things that aren’t answerable by science, that aren’t answered by science. Let them decide for themselves. I don’t think we should be scared to do that. Personally, it certainly makes sense to me that when you look at creation, you would believe in a creator. Let’s not be afraid to teach our kids the very best science.”
seems clear as daylight to me what his public position his.
what’s up with using his real name in that manner? i guess i don’t follow all the bobby jindal threads on this blog, so perhaps there’s a consensus i missed…but it seems kind of ugly. aren’t his politics and his avowed beliefs enough to satisfy a disputational urge???
What is there to teach in creationism ?
180 · boston_mahesh said
Yea. That’s what most christians think.
Razib,
it’s typical to emphasize a politician’s name to denigrate them. Hence Barack HUSSAIN Obama. George DUBYA Bush. That middle name is a pretty easy target, politically. In Bobby-boy’s case, though, it’s his first name.
M. Nam:
WTF? You would have no problem with someone teaching your child that 2+2=4, but then in another classroom, 2+2=5? And letting the kid decide for himself?
Wow.
As far as the Nisha troll is concerned, uh…no idea what she’s about. I guess her way definitely saves tax dollars by cutting back on all that unnecessary “teaching.” Just copy and paste the Genesis myth, and hey presto, instant education for all the kiddies! ‘Cuz the Bibull sed so! So shut up, why dontcha?
I’ll admit, that method definitely has its charms.
Well, apart from spawning more buckteeth and crossed-eyes, that is.
oops. block quote was supposed to extend one more paragraph.
I think Nisha was trying to be funny here … or am i missing something?
I believe in the right of an individual to commit suicide.
No – let the parents decide what their kid is going to study in school. Latin or French? Evolution or ID?
M. Nam
Latin or French? Evolution or ID?
better analogy is french or pig latin? evolution or ID?
184 · Rahul S said
Should make the point that Xtians are not monolithic in their conception of Hell. I knew people who do regard it as some faraway torture chamber that you visit after a lifetime of sinning and then there are also people who believe that ‘in hell’ is equivalent to being ‘separated from god’ (which I can’t really define but as common descriptions go, it’s far less frightening than fire and brimstone) which is a dire situation for a believing Xtian but can be taken by the supposed traveler to said undesirable destination/situation far better than the ‘I’m mentally consigning you to an eternity of torment’ line.
Was that really necessary? Perhaps said unfortunates live in a trailer? Among some of the ‘Jesus rode dinosaurs’ set I knew in school, quite a few sported perfect chompers and uncrossed eyes.
Hi…officially delurking here. I’m an Indian Christian and we don’t all believe that non-Christians are condemned to hell. Please keep in mind that Christianity was originally a middle eastern religion that bears little in common with fundie american christianity. Also want to stress that the Bible is not a science textbook like Jindal seems to believe. Christianity= Christ’s life, death and resurrection. All of these other issues like intelligent design are not fundamentals to the faith. It sickens me the way the Christian faith has been hijacked for politicall purposes. Jindal strikes me as a panderer and an opportunist.
I don’t see a problem with Jindal signing a Teach Creationism bill (I know that’s a simplification of what this bill is). 1. I’m not convinced dumb people need to be forced to learn about evolution, or real science, or whatever. 2. Smart people have the internet. Not sure they need anything else. 3. Jindal’s already attractive to smart people, because of his meritocratic resume. Him taking the dumb people’s side on harmless stuff like teaching Creationism in public schools will probably confuse their natural instincts to vote against the brown guy with the funny name and the elite eduction.
You should meet my friends who believe Jesus Rode a Harley-Davidson.
Where’ve ya been as of late, Nagaland? I’ve got some primo Secret Chiefs bootlegs just aching to help you turn on, tune in, and drop out.
191 · Susan said
Susan,
There is no controversy over teaching science (which is what evolutionary biology is and creationism IDiocy ain’t) in schools and colleges run by mainline Christian institutions. Catholic schools, and almost every non-Catholic run school or college (I leave out diploma mills) teaches plain honest to goodness science, because that is part of their selling point, providing superior education that gives students an edge in entering the most selective colleges. There’s no problem with evolution at BYU, SMU, Baylor, U.Tulsa, Notre Dame, Georgetown, or any such school. The anti-science movement targets public schools which is where majority views can be imposed, unlike private schools that are free to teach what they want. The leading lights of Creationist IDiocy such as Michael Behe (a Catholic and tenured professor at Lehigh) don’t send their kids to private or Catholic schools. They homeschool them, so that there is no chance of the scientific stuff seeping in!
193 · DJ Drrrty Poonjabi said
i’ve been on the wings of hao ma on my way to Zulfikar III…
Dave (192):
This is either the purest form of meta-sarcasm I’ve ever seen, or else it’s the exact opposite.
Either way, it’s pure comedy gold.
Jindal is just angry that Darwin has accomplished 100x more as a dead naturalist than he has as a living demagogue
I’m new here, I’m an Anglo-Indian from Calcutta. Many, if not most, Anglo-Indians are Catholics because many of us are the descendants of Irish soldiers who married or consorted with Muslim and Hindu women. The women were then forced to convert. And if a Catholic married a Protestant back in the day, the Protestant had to convert if they wanted a Catholic church marriage.
Catholics support evolution, or at least they did back when I went to Loreto House in Calcutta, a Catholic school run by strict nuns.
I wanted to bring-up a point about Jindal: he was the propagandist behind the whole purple finger / democracy / first real vote/ BS in Iraq. I cover the Middle East (actually the entire world) now as a journalist and it was complete BS.
Jindal is a phoney and a panderer. As such, he would be the perfect running mate for McCain because McCain is running on his “war hero” status when in fact he has sabotaged decades worth of legislation that would have helped his fellow POWs’ families find justice. McCain is now actively voting against legislation that will help this new generation of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Anyone who votes or supports a person because of their race or gender should be ashamed. The only way to achieve a color/ gender-blind society is to be truly color/ gender-blind and judge people on their merit.
Jindal may get on a national ticket, but it’s partly because he’s an Uncle Tom in the eyes of the GOP: their token brown person. He’s also very bright, and can lie like a rug, and that should also help him in politics, but to vote for him BECAUSE he’s of Indian descent — not me. His record is scary: he’s a neo-conservative, and IMO a proponent of endless war, so no matter what ethnicity we are we need to stay away from him.
McCain and Obama isn’t as different as people think they are.
Both are socialists.
Both will lead America in the wrong direction.
McCain is what we call in Politics a Republican in Name Only or RINO for short. Four years ago he wanted to run for Vice President on the Democratic Ticket but the Democratic Nominee Kerry didn’t pick him.
Here are just a few reasons not to support McCain.
McCain/Feingold: McCain fought for and championed this severe restriction on American’s free speech rights.
McCain/Kennedy: The infamous “Amnesty†legislation which would have allowed millions of illegal aliens to remain in the U.S., as long as they paid back taxes, a fine, and promised to learn English.
McCain’s Opposition to the 2001 and 2003 Bush Tax.
McCain has lost the support of much of the Conservative base who will be not marking his name done when they vote (if they vote) this November. McCain has shown through his legislation that he is a very liberal politician who has already done much harm to the constitution and is surely to do more if elected.
This law is just another example of the wealthy elites’ “keep ’em dumb” strategy: They get wealthy through their knowledge of finance, law, and technology but then encourage the masses to turn their backs on knowledge. To them, it’s better that we stay dumb and gullible so we’ll believe in things like big invisible beings in the sky, Saddam’s role in 9/11, and that Muslims hate us for our freedoms.