What is Kerry's position on Creation Science and on Bush's...

[arendt]

appointment of fundamentalist wackos to government science
boards?

I refer you to my thread in GD about this whole issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1127823


Howard Dean has been characteristically blunt about this:

"When the facts are in contradiction to their beliefs, Republicans
throw out the facts and keep their beliefs." (actually paraphrasing)

Can some Kerry supporter provide me with the gist of his position?

I am a scienttst, and the Democratic Party seems to be ever
more pandering to the fundamentalist wackos. I want a
candidate who will speak out against the increasing intrusion
of religion into all aspects of our secular nation.

This is not a provocation. I am asking for information on Kerry's
stated position on this. I expect to hear something I can support.
Please don't disappoint me.

arendt

[DrFunkenstein]

1. I Think His Position On Stem Cell Research Might Give A Hint

Like Thomas Jefferson, Kerry is a very spiritual person, but draws a big line between belief and governance.

[arendt]

2. So, here is what his website says

<snip>

Support of Biotechnology: Modern biotechnology has already produced dramatic breakthroughs in human health, and offers promise in food, agriculture, and industrial products. Kerry strongly supports research and development in biotechnology (in both health and agriculture) and he supports government regulation that assures strong science-based decision making.

* Improve Health through Stem Cell Research:  Stem cell research has the potential to fight diseases such as Parkinson’s, cancer, and diabetes. Bush only supports research on a few inferior stem cell lines, which has undermined discoveries that could save lives. Kerry will support stem cell research.

</snip>

I assume the highlighted comment is what you refer to.

Well, its nice to hear, especially since MA is a very big biotech state.
But, there are no details. And absolutely zero comment on WHY
Bush has dictated what he has, on THE NEGATIVE EFFECT of
Bush's decision on research in this area within the US.

And, most relevant to my rant in GD, there is not one word tying
Kerry's support for stem cells to the genetic code that makes such
research possible, and to the theory of evolution underlying that
code.

Is this kind of bland positive statement all we are going to get about
the cancer of fundamentalism that is eating this country alive?

arendt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arendt]

4. Useful response from banned DUer

I got this via email from a DUer who is currently arguing with
the mods. I appreciate his initiative to participate positively
in this discussion.

--------------------------

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/december10/kerry-1210.html

Stanford Report, Dec. 10, 2003
Kerry raps Bush’s ‘anti-science’ bias

In a campus appearance billed as his launch of a comprehensive plan to boost the creation of high-technology jobs in the United States, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) on Monday delivered a blistering critique of the Bush administration's record on everything from national security and the new Medicare bill to what he called Bush's "anti-science" bias.

The Bush administration is the most anti-science administration in modern history, Kerry said, citing the restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research to 64 existing stem cell lines. In making that decision, Bush appeased the Republican Party's right wing and ignored scientists, he said.

The United States needs to produce more scientists and engineers, whose innovations can fuel the economic future, he said. To help create a better-educated work force, Kerry proposed a plan to pay college tuition for students who would pledge service to their communities in exchange.

---------

It is clear that Kerry gets the "anti-science" angle. Perhaps that is the
way to phrase it; although I hate the cowardice of not blasting the
fundamentalists.

Why are the effing fundamentalists the sacred cows of American politics?

arendt

[arendt]

5. Rush hour kick n/t

n/t

[arendt]

6. kick - once again, substance is boring. smearing is exciting. n/t

n/t

[jpgray]

7. You don't unload on religious folks before a presidential election. :-)

But as one who worked hard for Kyoto, and who has the aforementioned stem-cell position, I highly doubt he follows creation nonsense. Plus he is positively pro-choice, and is facing the ire of the Catholic Church for that position.

[arendt]

9. These people aren't religious, they aren't Xtian. They are cultists.

We need to put "dispensationalism", a Christian theocratic America,
and all the other garbage in the fundamentalist dumpster on the
table for truly religious people to smell.

There are several religious websites blasting Bush for being the
anti-Christ. Why don't we just point people to these sites and watch
what few neurons these jerks have short-circuit?

The GOP has been throwing their religious fanatic followers into
the political wars for over two decades. And, what, they would be
"shocked, shocked" that some other religious tradition might be
upset at their grandiose appropriation of all morality to themselves?

----

Just like everyone uses surrogates to do the dirty work, Kerry should
use surrogates to raise the issue of the Christian Reconstructionist
Arahmson, who owns major shares in several e-voting companies.
They should raise the issue of the seven or so GOP congressman
who live in group housing with fundies-in-training in DC.

There are a ton of really sicko things that the GOP do with the fundies.
You shine the light on those things and watch them try to slither away.

If you can't shine the light during what is shaping up to be the dirtiest
election in history, when can you ever shine the light?

arendt

[jpgray]

11. It's way too polarizing, and can be spun VERY negatively

You go after the crazies, the Republicans will tell the regular folks that they're next--the atheists are on the hunt. If you're religious and Christian, you are going to believe things that don't coincide with science. Removing evolution or the Big Bang from a school's curriculum for religious reasons is completely wrong and should be abhorrent to thinking folks. But giving the Republicans a great wedge issue when you don't need to is a massive mistake.

edit: And even with surrogates, the responsibility still lies more or less with the candidate. Instead of "Kerry goes after religion!" it will be "Kerry camp goes after religion!"

[arendt]

12. I am sick of this double standard. They are dismantling science, but...

its "way too polarizing" to call them on it.

Maybe you are a bond salesman, but me, I not only USED TO
have a good science job, I actually have a scientific worldview
as opposed to a religious belief.

> giving the Republicans a great wedge issue

What do you mean "giving them"? Have you failed to notice
the club they have been beating us with for over five years?
Have you failed to notice the vaporization of Church/State
separation? the unbelievable arrogance of Antonin Scalia?

I completely reject the idea that the average American understands
anything anymore, other than WHO IS WINNING. They respect
nothing but raw power.

Pulling our punches just lets them continue to hammer us. It
makes THEIR worldview sacred, and our worldview squishy
liberal mush. It means we play on their playing field.

Do you really think that the GOP has not already motivated their
idiot supporters to the max? How many more shots of adrenalin
can those berserkers take before they just have a heart attack?

The whole message of the Dean campaign is to get out our base.
Well, attacking all the fundamentalist crap would sure as hell
motivate me. As for the other side, they already hate me.
Screw the Fundamentalist Vote, we never had it; and we never
will.

arendt

[jpgray]

13. But we don't want BUSH'S base motivated--he would love this move

Apathy from the Republican base can be as great a tool to us as Democratic apathy was in 2000 to the Republicans. If we draw firm, polarizing lines on such issues, we'll make it much harder for ourselves.

No one here will dispute that it is RIGHT to say and do the things you describe. But if we want to make some changes in office, we can't very well talk about them on the campaign trail. :( Witness Kennedy portraying himself as a die-hard anti-Communist--he didn't want to give the Republicans a gift-wrapped issue to mobilize their base.

edit: Don't expect Kerry to say "Yes! I believe in Creationism!" But do expect him to leave religion pretty much alone.

[arendt]

16. What, like they are asleep now?

> expect him to leave religion pretty much alone.

Yeah, I see how well that is received by the Democratic base
in the gay marriage fracas. The gay community is upset at
Kerry's waffling.

----

Do you think the GOP has not been mobilizing its base with
all this Ten Commandments idolatry, partial birth abortion ban,
abstinence-only sex ed, Gay Marraige and Dems-are-adulterers
crapola? The GOP shock their lab rats daily with one or another
preposterous "outrage".

And those lab rats think we Dems are pussies, they don't respect
us. All that boneheads like that respect is raw force. So, I say
hit them, and keep hitting them.

arendt

on edit: more exammples of 'shocks'.

[jpgray]

17. Read my below post--sort of playing tag here. :-) (nt)

[arendt]

14. Reply to your 'on edit': so let us Crazed Deanites do the dirty work

You need a hit squad, and you are too squemish to have one.

So, we won't work for Kerry. We will set up some phony "irreparable
difference/disagreement" with Kerry and storm out in a faux huff.
Then, we will rip the shit out of these fundamentalist phonies as
a movement for Constitutional government.

There are surrogates, and there are surrogates.

What is Bush going to do? This is the same dodge that
Israel runs with Hamas. It is an un-bustable dodge. There
is zero connection. The media has to invent one; and when
they try, the Dean people just shoot back that they hate Kerry,
but they hate Bush even worse.

on edit: Kerry gets to disown us, but the damage gets done.

What do you think?

arendt

[jpgray]

15. Sure, but we should avoid energizing Bush's base for him, if we can

Not to the extent that we fold on major issues (i.e. an amendment to the US Constitution formed in bigotry), but to the extent that we don't give the crazies an excuse to get real excited. It's a tough balancing act, and if you succeed in denying it as a polarizing issue, you may also succeed in earning the palpable disappointment of your own base for avoiding a tough issue. Very tricky.

[arendt]

18. That is very well spoken. Work with me here...

to come up with issues that can motivate the Dems without
raising the temperature of the already-feverish fundies.

Can you touch the issues already in play?

Ten Commandments - can be played as idolatry.
Partial Birth - call it its true name, stats on use, no concern for mother,
Ashcroft using law to invade privacy.

What about putting the issue of the sexual procliviites of
fundamentalist politicians in play?

The Oklahoma nutcase just accused of sexual battery.

What about having non-fundie religious groups apply for
"faith-based" handouts?

Same deal as Mormons suing for right to polygamy.

What about Christian groups attacking Falwell, et al as
heretical Christians?

----

My point is that the Dems are gun shy because of the media.
They behave like Germans late in WW2, whose tactics had to
work around total Allied air domination.

I put forward a smorgasbord of potential anti-fundie issues.
As much as possible, I want to work through third party groups.
We have to use the same gutter tactics as the GOP, not because
they will work for us; but because, when we both use them, the
tactics cancel out.

Please help me choose some ideas that are workable.

arendt

[arendt]

19. More thoughts...

We need to expose the whole Conservative-Fundamentalist
"network". Just shine the light on it.

The fundies already know who they listen to. A lot of Dems
haven't a clue what a slick, well-funded operation is screwing
them over. Exposing the network motivates Dems without
giving the fundies any traction.

What about the Council for National Policy? This is a secret,
closed-meeting society of rich, fundamentalists who behave
like a shadow government. They actually vet GOP presidential
candidates. Bush * gave a secret speech to them to get their
support.

How does

Religious Secret Society tries to take over US,
uses Bush as agent

strike you? The drones of the GOP are conditioned to hate
secret societies - think they are all "black helicopter, UN world
control groups.

Then there is Grover Norquist's ties to Arab fundamentalists.
Grover really, really cries out for some spotlight.

arendt

[arendt]

20. Its too bad Dean has the trademark on "I'm tired of being divided by..."

All the things I am mentioning are instances where the fundies
invent some issue as an excuse for dividing America into the
"saved" and the "damned".

Its such blatantly Manichaen manipulation. Dean's formulation
was very good. It criticizes extremism and polarization and appeals
for moderate support.

Formulatiions like that are why I still support Dean. Kerry needs
better writers. Dean writes his own stuff.

arendt

[arendt]

21. Paging Mr. Gray, Mr. J. P. Gray...

You sort of vanished.

If you don't want to work with me, just say so. I won't
be offended. But, just vanishing is annoying.

arendt

[snippy]

8. I don't know about Kerry but this type of question would hurt Bush.

Fundamentalists would be pissed if he belittled their superstitions and moderate republicans would be uneasy if he declared his own. It would be lose-lose for Bush.

[arendt]

10. As I replied to jpgray, use surrogates

Let's put Bob Jones University out there and watch Bush squirm.

Let's put Falwell, Robertson, and Franklin Graham's Arab-bashing
and hate-mongering out there for real Christians to get a whiff of.

If a candidate cannot put Moonie-supported garbage like Falwell in
the spotlight, the fundies have won.

Which reminds me, why does no one mention the Bush, Sr. / Moon
ties in the corporate press? Everyone on the internet knows where
to go to find that stuff.

There is so much sleaze here, and everyone refuses to see it.
I feel like the only sane person on a planet of lunatics.

arendt