Yesterday, as part of my essay, Requiem for a Nightmare, I wrote: "The Reductionists have been very aggressive in promoting their philosophy as 'The Truth.' And they don't allow dissent."
See this news article from Wednesday's St. Petersburg Times: Can Bill Foster's creation beliefs evolve into valid issue in St. Petersburg mayoral race? The answer, sadly, is "yes."
From the piece...
In this election Foster has been dogged by questions about his religious beliefs after he sent a controversial letter to the Pinellas School Board, urging members to allow discussion about alternatives to the theory of evolution...
"This city is trying to increase its employment base with respect to scientific organizations and trying to recruit scientific concerns to come here,'' said St. Petersburg architect Michael Dailey, who supports Kathleen Ford, Foster's opponent. "If our mayor has a belief system that basically rejects science, how can people take him seriously?"
Foster said he would eagerly court and recruit any science-based employers, regardless of his own personal religious and scientific beliefs. Those beliefs, he insisted, have nothing to do with how he would govern the city.
"I'm very accepting of the many faiths and diversity of the city,'' Foster said, acknowledging that he constantly faces questions about his religious beliefs. "How does my knowledge of scientific theory impact my ability to rationally govern the city of St. Petersburg? It's completely irrelevant."
Ford disagreed: "What's relevant is where the city of St. Petersburg is going in the future. That future is in science and technology. Creationism has no place in science and technology."
Foster insists his personal religious beliefs, which are shared by millions of Americans, never will and never have overlapped with his governing...
"The Bible is what I use to dictate my personal belief system and values, but this book also … commands me to submit to the authority at hand, which is the Constitution,'' Foster said.
This is an extremely troubling development. Do you really want to disqualify Christians - real Christians - from serving in public office? Do we really want to make acceptance of Darwinism a requirement for elected office?
The Darwinists obviously say "Yes." But what about the rest of America - the vast majority of citizens who believe in God and have little interest in the debate?
I think they'd ask: "What the heck does Darwinism have to do with fixing potholes?"
And they'd be right.
But that's not good enough for the Darwinists. It's not enough that you understand Darwinism. It's not good enough that you tolerate Darwinism. No, you must believe in Darwinism!
And if you don't...leave managing the country to the "enlightened elite."
Oh yeah, America will be much better off with them in charge!