Comments on: Obama and McCain – Friend or Foe of Science?

By: Counseling

Counseling — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:20:30 +0000

I believe one of the things that makes our nation great is the true diversity of thought. When partisanship becomes so narrow that we as American’s start despising others, the truth is we need to look in the mirror. As someone who is a dual citizen of both the US and Canada, I have had a unique perspective. Its too easy to just hate Bush and hate McCain simply because of a political-left bias. Bush did a lot of good things, and it is disturbing and sad to me when people are so narrow in scope that they cannot possibly find one single good thing about president that in all fairness, did many good things. Yes he did things that were harmful, but my point is that when partisan politics overrides one’s ability to cast objective judgment so that it becomes a pathological judgment against an entire person, or a whole political party, we have a problem within ourselves. Usually, there will be good things about most people- even the ones we so vehmently disagree with.

By: Therapy

Therapy — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:41:14 +0000

I dont know about the Christian Fundamentalists, but I definitely think George Bush and his party do not rely on facts. I believe the whole “War on Terrorism” which is a non-scientific issue was also to appease one man’s ego. If I had to give that man a name I would say “George Bush”. Intolerance to science is a feudalistic thought. If we now believe that the world is round and we dont have to die of tuberculosis or any other dreaded disease, then we all have to respect science no matter what or who. I think McCain’s government is going to be a bigger bully than the Bush administration inside America and outside. I do not know if Obama would be the answer but I do know at this point that I am not going to support McCain.

By: Chris Berry

Chris Berry — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 21:56:52 +0000

Both sides have been guilty of using questionable science to advance their political objectives. The main difference is that the Democrats have been able to spread misinformation without relying on religion.

By: Dick Hudson

Dick Hudson — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:16:03 +0000

The intimation that the Christian Fundamentalists would not lie or offer false scientific statements is denied by actuality. They have consistently done so in their anti-abortion campaigns, e.g., showing first stage fetuses as tiny humanesque babies is but one minor example. Further, deceit was and is an accepted machination of The Church in order to gain, maintain and control adherents and a “respected” tool of Christian proselytizing down through the ages:
“Do you see the advantage of deceit? … For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind … And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived.”
(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).
John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the 5th century CE and prominent early church apologist