The main reason behind Creationism in schools.

[Warrior1461]

The main reason why the christian right is pushing this in schools is for one REASON. basic survival of their own brand of religion.

Ever since Darwin their world view is getting hammered by society at large. For being scientifically incorrect because it is, not only that the young earth creationism is also theologically incorrect and based on many ideas such as flood geology that were abandoned by even the most devout christian geologists in the early 19th century.

Creationism in schools like to them like the card check law is to the labor unions. Both groups share one thing in common, both are seeing their numbers drastically dwindle for the past 50 years. One reason was free trade, it got cheaper to ship manufacturing jobs overseas thus those obs unions depend on for members declined. With the coming of birth control and Roe V. Wade the religious right got slammed the biggest since the scopes money trial. Today things could not be more desperate for them, after 911 there are more people who call themselves atheists than people of faith, watching planes fly into buildings and turn 3000 Americans into dust helped, also watching The Vatican cover up Priests raping boys and the constant religious insanity of Iran and the Taliban is not helping. Fact is atheism and free thinking is still growing rapidly. Now we have gays wanting to get married and a public becoming more tolerant and sympathetic to them. All this crazy we see from the Christian right and even the hardcore terrorist Islamics are caused by one thing Desperation. They are a people who's traditional way of life is in the death throes. We are heading to a new way of thinking their ways are obsolete. They will not change anything of their culture to adapt and at least keep the heart of what they believe in intact, because they believe they will be rewarded for their steadfast obedience, that they will get raptured to heaven or saved on judgement day. Only thing they will get in the end is total oblivion. Creationism in schools is just one action in a movement that is desperate to stay alive.

[Dinwar]

This is the reason.

There's no need to speculate--they've come out and said "We're doing this to try to take over your culture". They've stated that their goal is a theocracy.

Quote:

Ever since Darwin their world view is getting hammered by society at large.

YEC stopped being an intellectually valid position quite a long time prior to Darwin. Lyelle's Principles of Geology, which was the foundation for Uniformitarianism sensu stricto, was one of the books Darwin brought with him on the Beagle, for example.

[Warrior1461]

Because a theocracy is the only way their BS can survive. It was the reason behind the taliban and the 1979 Iran Revolution. These countries were moving towards more western ideas, they traditionalists were being more and more marginalized and squeezed out. We are seeing it with the Christian Right, as their form of religion is losing influence in the USA and Europe.

[UnrepentantSinner]

One of the great ironies of YECism is that while they think they're protecting True_TM Christianity, they're actually doing damage to it. YECism has created more crises of faith than all of Robert Green Ingersoll's activites combined.

[davefoc]

The OP suggests that society is moving towards a religion free culture. It is probably moving in that direction in the western world but that doesn't mean that a religion free society will happen.

I have never had a good idea about what the percentage of true religious believers was in the current US culture. Clearly a lot of people just go along with religion because it is part of their culture and not because deep down they believe it. Another group probably doesn't think much about the issues at all but is happy enough to just accept whatever cultural views they were born into.

But clearly there is a percentage of true religious believers that have little or no doubt about the particular claims of the religion that they are part of. What percentage of the population is in this group? If these people grew up in a religion free environment would they gradually move towards a religious view of the world anyway? My thought is that a percentage of the population will always be religious and even if you did some sort of experiment where you raised religiously inclined people completely without religion they would still gravitate towards religious type beliefs as they aged.

At one point, I thought that astrology was such an obviously false notion that very few people took it seriously. I seem to have been wrong. Some people just believe in stuff like that. I met somebody the other day claiming that their balance was improved because they were wearing some kind of wrist band. Even if you imagine a religion free culture (which I suspect is impossible given the nature of a human population) there would still be a lot of people believing a lot of weird stuff.

Even people that I would classify as skeptical are subject to the formation of almost non-falsifiable views abetted by various biases that they can't avoid even if they happen to be aware of them.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by UnrepentantSinner

One of the great ironies of YECism is that while they think they're protecting True_TM Christianity, they're actually doing damage to it. YECism has created more crises of faith than all of Robert Green Ingersoll's activites combined.

Yup, even for some people brought up in the insular YEC fundamentalist lifestyle and culture, eventually they can no longer reconcile attempting to mentally shove round pegs into square holes. And once they start to question anything about YEC/fundamentalism, it all pretty much starts to fall apart; hence the reason why these folks are so committed to keeping their young people as ignorant and brainwashed as possible.

[MattusMaximus]

It also strikes me that many fundamentalists in the United States are starting to get really twitchy about the future, because even they can see the slow progress of U.S. society towards more and more secularism. While about 20% of the U.S. population professes to be irreligious now, among the under 30 demographic that is closer to one-third; couple this with the fact that the most religious people are in the over 60 demographic, and it isn't hard to see that some pretty big changes on the religious landscape are coming.

And the right-wing fundamentalists don't like it, yet they know there's probably nothing they can do to stop it. So I fully expect them to get more desperate, more zealous, more nutty, and more entertaining in the next 10-20 years.

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This is the reason.

There's no need to speculate--they've come out and said "We're doing this to try to take over your culture". They've stated that their goal is a theocracy.

YEC stopped being an intellectually valid position quite a long time prior to Darwin. Lyelle's Principles of Geology, which was the foundation for Uniformitarianism sensu stricto, was one of the books Darwin brought with him on the Beagle, for example.

I own a book on geology written by a Church of England clergyman who clearly states that the Earth is many millions of years old, and that this does not produce a conflict with religious belief. It considerably predates Darwin.

[fromdownunder]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This is the reason.

When I read the OP, the Wedge Strategy was the first thing that popped into my mind. I also note that their dates and future "achievements" have not exactly been met. Not at all.

The Dover trial still stands out as the YEC Movements great failure, with their star witness Michael Behe coming out of it loking like a gibbering fool..

Norm

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

When I read the OP, the Wedge Strategy was the first thing that popped into my mind. I also note that their dates and future "achievements" have not exactly been met. Not at all.

The Dover trial still stands out as the YEC Movements great failure, with their star witness Michael Behe coming out of it loking like a gibbering fool..

Norm

The Dover trial reminded me not everyone in the Republican Party (the judge was a Bush appointee) is irrational.

[Good Lt]

Creationists criticize science, evolution, biology and methodological naturalism as if they're tools of the devil, and then try to cloak their crackpot creation fables that don't stand up to scientific scrutiny at all with credibility by shoehorning them into public school science classes. They then complain about the failure of US public schools to get kids up to snuff with the rest of the 1st world on matters of science.

It boggles the mind.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The Dover trial reminded me not everyone in the Republican Party (the judge was a Bush appointee) is irrational.

True that - I tend to lean center-right politically, and not one of the center-right friends I traffic with supports creationism. Maybe it's a younger-generation thing (which one of the posters above alluded to), because the only young people that I do know who subscribe to this nonsense are brainwashed religious types who were brought up in strict religious households. Everyone else I know thinks it's a joke.

The irony of Judge Jones being a Bush appointee was that the creationists (Discovery Institute folks, especially) in the trial thought that the judge was going to be friendly to their cause and not pay attention to any facts.

So good on the judge for paying attention to facts and not letting religious politics get in the way of science.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

The Dover trial still stands out as the YEC Movements great failure, with their star witness Michael Behe coming out of it loking like a gibbering fool..

The Dover trial (and Behe's work) was about ID, not YEC.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Warrior1461

Because a theocracy is the only way their BS can survive. It was the reason behind the taliban and the 1979 Iran Revolution. These countries were moving towards more western ideas, they traditionalists were being more and more marginalized and squeezed out. We are seeing it with the Christian Right, as their form of religion is losing influence in the USA and Europe.

Point. We've seen this extremism in the GOP during the pres. candidate process: Santorum, Bachmann, Palin, and extending to commentators like Limbaugh et al. Their foaming-at-the-mouth theocratic moralizing is the desperate response to being "marginalized and squeezed out"... just as with Taliban and Iran.

[SonOfLaertes]

Would the Christian Right love a theocracy? No doubt. Is that their main concern right now? No. They are simply trying to tread water, no matter what brave face they are putting up in public. They have lost the younger generations - people in their 40's are less religious than their elders, people in their 30's are hardly religious at all relative to their elders, people in their 20's are openly scornful of the teachings of their elders, and kids in their teens don't know or care what religion is.

It has become apparent to me for years now that when a certain generation in America begins to die off, everything changes. Not only will the last hardcore fundamentalist generation die off - all the younger gens who are more or less paying lip service to the faith will lose that last reason to act more devout than they really are.

Americans will still - to a lesser degree - identify as "having faith". That faith will simply be less organized and insular. it's hard to keep up a culture of deep faith when the sons and daughters of stout baptists marry Catholic's and Methodists, and their slightly confused children then go off and marry Jews, Hispanics, Mormons, blacks, and (gasp) atheists.

The Christian Right is doomed and they know it. The Great Melting Pot has been accelerating out of control for a generation now and there will be no going back.

[GreyArea]

Originally Posted by davefoc

I have never had a good idea about what the percentage of true religious believers was in the current US culture. Clearly a lot of people just go along with religion because it is part of their culture and not because deep down they believe it.

The Richard Dawkins Foundation commissioned a poll recently to look religious belief in the U.K. It found things similar to what you are saying here.

They wanted to look at the reasons for people's self-reported religious affiliation in Britain's latest census. The survey found that it is too simplistic to claim a vast majority of Britons are Christians for religious reasons.

Read a summary here:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6...-uk-christians

I'd be interested to know if anyone is going to do the same thing for the U.S. I think a similar clarification would be found.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by SonOfLaertes

It has become apparent to me for years now that when a certain generation in America begins to die off, everything changes. Not only will the last hardcore fundamentalist generation die off - all the younger gens who are more or less paying lip service to the faith will lose that last reason to act more devout than they really are.

Personally, I think a lot of politicians pay lip service to the anti-evolution stance. They can't ALL be that bull-headedly ignorant about how the natural world works (at least, I hope).

I think they just say, "well, there's a controversy," because the votes of so many uneducated yokels are on the line.

Quote:

The Christian Right is doomed and they know it. The Great Melting Pot has been accelerating out of control for a generation now and there will be no going back.

Haven't you heard? "Melting Pot" is now politically incorrect. The preferred term is "Salad Bowl".

[Bikewer]

I've long maintained that if you were able to question large numbers of people of faith in depth, you'd find that a rather large percentage of them would have only a rather fuzzy idea of their particular sect's core beliefs, and that further they would have put together a personal amalgum of ideas that they like, and would have ignored the ones they don't.

As in the typical gay-hate, wherein the sect or individuals will freely quote Leviticus or other sources about prosriptions against homosexuality, yet utterly ignore the same text's proscriptions against all manner of other things as being "quaint" or "things were different back then."
I agree that the more fundamentalist sects may be in trouble or may have to consider change; recently a group of researchers at a prominent Evangelical university released a paper saying that they could no longer support the idea of biblical literacy in regards to Genesis; the evidence for evolution being so overwhelming and the story being so obviously a creation myth.
As well, consider Francis Collins, a microbiologist heavily involved with the Human Genome Project, yet who maintains his stance as an Evangelical. Yet, he maintains that YEC is nonsense, that the bible is allegorical, that Evolution is "How God did it.", and so forth.

[Mark6]

Originally Posted by davefoc

Even if you imagine a religion free culture (which I suspect is impossible given the nature of a human population) there would still be a lot of people believing a lot of weird stuff.

You do not need to imagine, you can see. Japanese, Dutch, and Scandinavian cultures are pretty much religion-free by now. Ireland is not (yet), but experienced the most incredible turnaround on religion so far in history. And yes, plenty of people in these cultures believe in "a lot of weird stuff".

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

It also strikes me that many fundamentalists in the United States are starting to get really twitchy about the future, because even they can see the slow progress of U.S. society towards more and more secularism. While about 20% of the U.S. population professes to be irreligious now, among the under 30 demographic that is closer to one-third; couple this with the fact that the most religious people are in the over 60 demographic, and it isn't hard to see that some pretty big changes on the religious landscape are coming.

And the right-wing fundamentalists don't like it, yet they know there's probably nothing they can do to stop it. So I fully expect them to get more desperate, more zealous, more nutty, and more entertaining in the next 10-20 years.

I agree with everything you wrote except last sentence. I see nothing entertaining about right-wing fundamentalists, and a lot of things scary. Yes they are doomed in the long run, but can do a lot of damage in the meantime. Up to and including nuclear war -- low probability, but after all, they are pretty much the only people who think it is (or can be) a positive thing.

[SonOfLaertes]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Haven't you heard? "Melting Pot" is now politically incorrect. The preferred term is "Salad Bowl".

Sorry, I need to get caught up on what I'm allowed to say. Is their a manual somewhere?

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by Mark6

You do not need to imagine, you can see. Japanese, Dutch, and Scandinavian cultures are pretty much religion-free by now. Ireland is not (yet), but experienced the most incredible turnaround on religion so far in history. And yes, plenty of people in these cultures believe in "a lot of weird stuff".

Japanese culture is still very dominated by religion, both culturally and politically. Japan does have a rather vocal minority of right-wing extremists who use State Shinto as a basis for many of their demands. Granted, with a nod to the OP, it hasn't affected their educational system all that much.

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by Mark6

I agree with everything you wrote except last sentence. I see nothing entertaining about right-wing fundamentalists, and a lot of things scary. Yes they are doomed in the long run, but can do a lot of damage in the meantime. Up to and including nuclear war -- low probability, but after all, they are pretty much the only people who think it is (or can be) a positive thing.

Considering the concentration of nuclear war technology and assets, located in areas where the Christian fundamentalists have large numbers of followers and political power; I too see nothing entertaining about the possible long term outcome of their religious organizations losing control. When they get desperate, that's when things could get very scary indeed. Hopefully, logic will prevail; but logic isn't one of the strong points of religious fundamentalists.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by westprog

I own a book on geology written by a Church of England clergyman who clearly states that the Earth is many millions of years old, and that this does not produce a conflict with religious belief. It considerably predates Darwin.

Yes, yes, we know--some religions, and some members of most of the hard-line religions, accept facts. HOWEVER, the fact that some do is irrelevent to my point. The ones who don't are trying to creat a theocracy, and have stated as much. Their first step is getting us to accept Creationism in schools. The fact that some people in England aren't in no way invalidates this.

If I say "The main goal of al Quada is to get the USA out of the Middle East", saying that Saladin was generous when he conquered Jerusalem isn't a counter-argument.

Originally Posted by Mojo

The Dover trial (and Behe's work) was about ID, not YEC.

The Panda's Thumb pretty much proves that the difference between ID and YEC is that ID has a different name.

Originally Posted by SonOfLaertes

Would the Christian Right love a theocracy? No doubt. Is that their main concern right now? No. They are simply trying to tread water, no matter what brave face they are putting up in public.

Than why do we have multiple states trying to ban homosexual marrage at any given time? Why do we have "vice taxes"? Why do we have multiple states trying to push Creationism into the schools? I agree that they're losing ground--but I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the speed of that loss.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

Haven't you heard? "Melting Pot" is now politically incorrect. The preferred term is "Salad Bowl".

I've always preferred "Stew." In a salad all the ingredients are still too separated. There's a thin sheen of dressing gluing it all together but mostly things keep to themselves. But in a stew, while each addition is still recognizable in the finished product, everything that got put in has contributed a little to everything else, and the dish as a whole is richer for it.

The other week I had a short rib and kimchi burrito served to me by a dude wearing an anime t-shirt out of a taco truck blasting ghetto rap at nearly a hundred decibels. That is my new vision for America.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

This is the reason.

There's no need to speculate--they've come out and said "We're doing this to try to take over your culture". They've stated that their goal is a theocracy.

I'm not seeing the "theocracy" part. Can you cite your support for that?

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm not seeing the "theocracy" part. Can you cite your support for that?

Just making sure - you don't support teaching creationism in science class, right?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm not seeing the "theocracy" part. Can you cite your support for that?

Originally Posted by TFA, governing goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

I can see how this would be hard to miss.

[AvalonXQ]

Still not seeing it.

Maybe it would help if someone would explain to me what they mean by theocracy.

It's not seriously disputed that in the late 18th century, our government as well as most of our citizens had a generally theistic understanding of the universe. The Creator was widely invoked by government officials and in founding documents, and even most scientists of that time had a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".

Is it your assertion, then, that our country was founded as a theocracy? Because I certainly don't see it.

Which is why I'm asking the question, what do you mean by "theocracy", and how do you expect that this particular organization's goals (which are primarily to make special creation the primary paradigm in science and general understanding in our culture) would lead to a theocratic form of government?

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Still not seeing it.

Maybe it would help if someone would explain to me what they mean by theocracy.

It's not seriously disputed that in the late 18th century, our government as well as most of our citizens had a generally theistic understanding of the universe. The Creator was widely invoked by government officials and in founding documents, and even most scientists of that time had a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".

Is it your assertion, then, that our country was founded as a theocracy? Because I certainly don't see it.

Which is why I'm asking the question, what do you mean by "theocracy", and how do you expect that this particular organization's goals (which are primarily to make special creation the primary paradigm in science and general understanding in our culture) would lead to a theocratic form of government?

Fair questions.

Now one for you.

Do you support the teaching of creationism in science class?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Good Lt

Fair questions.

Thanks, I hope they'll be answered.

Quote:

Now one for you.

Do you support the teaching of creationism in science class?

Not yet. I think science class should generally match the scientific consensus. That's not creationism right now.

EDIT: I'll switch that up to "maybe". It really depends on how it's taught.

I want science to be more than geography or stamp-collecting; I want it to be about teaching methods of evidence-based thought. So I'm okay with teaching any theory in the science classroom as long as the approach of the conversation is "What evidence supports this theory?" and "What testing can be done to support or falsify this theory?" That includes various flavors of creationism.

All right; I tried to articulate a serious answer to the question. Now I hope we can get closer back on topic, and that somebody will address mine.

[Hokulele]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Still not seeing it.

Maybe it would help if someone would explain to me what they mean by theocracy.

It's not seriously disputed that in the late 18th century, our government as well as most of our citizens had a generally theistic understanding of the universe. The Creator was widely invoked by government officials and in founding documents, and even most scientists of that time had a "theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God".

Is it your assertion, then, that our country was founded as a theocracy? Because I certainly don't see it.

Which is why I'm asking the question, what do you mean by "theocracy", and how do you expect that this particular organization's goals (which are primarily to make special creation the primary paradigm in science and general understanding in our culture) would lead to a theocratic form of government?

That is a distinction without a difference. If they are trying to instill their version of science and morality as the cultural norm via legislation and enforcement, that is pretty much a theocracy in everything but name. The Discovery Institute isn't stupid enough to outright admit that is what they are doing, so in the same way they relabeled "Creationism" as "Inteliigent Design", they are relabeling theocracy.

It wouldn't be theocracy if they were only trying to establish their claims via the normal scientific channels, but once they brought politics and judicial matters into the mix, it definitely slanted that way.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Not yet. I think science class should generally match the scientific consensus. That's not creationism right now.

Your response seems to indicate that you think the scientific consensus will one day favor creationism.

If that is an accurate characterization of your response, what makes you think this?

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I'm not seeing the "theocracy" part. Can you cite your support for that?

Quote:

Governing Goals

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Quote:

Twenty Year Goals

To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts. To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

I've highlighted the parts. You may not see the word "theocracy" anywhere, but I'm at a loss for anything else to call religious control of politics and philosopy, or religious dogma (which is all Creationism is, as has been proven in several court cases) "permeat[ing] our....moral and political life."

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Maybe it would help if someone would explain to me what they mean by theocracy.

Religious control of the government.

Quote:

Is it your assertion, then, that our country was founded as a theocracy?

No. However, religious dogma didn't permeate as much of life as people think back then. Read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason, or Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. While Thomas Jefferson was no atheist he also did not believe in an interventionist god. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were deists, a position that's pretty hard to use to dictate social policy.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I want science to be more than geography or stamp-collecting; I want it to be about teaching methods of evidence-based thought. So I'm okay with teaching any theory in the science classroom as long as the approach of the conversation is "What evidence supports this theory?" and "What testing can be done to support or falsify this theory?" That includes various flavors of creationism.

I'll agree with this--but only in as much as I agree that alchemy shoudl be taught. Creationism is a disproven theory. How it was disproven is interesting and informative, but iti must always be presented as what it is, an idea that was proven wrong.

I also must suggest you make an error in taking the word of institutions like the Discovery Institute at face value. They've already pushed for legal action to force Creationism (ID is nothing but Creationism and anyone who says differently is either too ignorant to discuss the issue or simply lying) on school systems. Given such tactics, theocracy is not an unreasonable conclusion to their plan. They're already legislating religious beliefs, so pure theocracy is merely a difference of degree, rather than of principle.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Religious control of the government.

I really don't see anything in their goals that would be tantamount to "religious control of the government".

It just seems to be that the way the US was in the late 1700s and early 1800s, where God and intelligent design were taken for granted by just about everyone, is entirely consistent with what the wedge document describes -- and is certainly not a theocracy.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

IID is nothing but Creationism and anyone who says differently is either too ignorant to discuss the issue or simply lying

Well, I guess if Dinwar says it in such strong terms, it must be so.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I really don't see anything in their goals that would be tantamount to "religious control of the government".

~shrug~ You want to give them the benefit of the doubt. Once someone's proven to have engaged in fraud, I tend to not do that.

ETA: AvalonXQ, the Discovery Institute is ON RECORD IN COURT as being guilty of fraud. That's not poisoing the well, it's recognizing proven facts. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge WHAT HAS BEEN PROVEN doesn't make those facts go away.

[Good Lt]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

That includes various flavors of creationism.

Which one(s)?

What evidence are you referring to?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

All right; I tried to articulate a serious answer to the question. Now I hope we can get closer back on topic, and that somebody will address mine.

Appreciated, although the thread topic is both a combination of the notion of creationism being taught in science class and why creationists are trying to have it taught in science class.

So exploring your rationale as to the 'why,' if you believe it should be taught (you said 'not yet,' and then 'maybe'), is on-topic and relevant to the discussion.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

~shrug~ You want to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Again, your claim: "They've stated that their goal is a theocracy."

I don't see support for this claim.

Now, if your new claim is "They've state that their goal is to take over culture, and I believe that the end result of this would be a theocracy", then you can back up that claim with additional evidence.

Quote:

Once someone's proven to have engaged in fraud, I tend to not do that.

They have engaged in fraud? According to whom?

Or are you just saying that by re-branding creationism as ID, they were engaging in fraud?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

AvalonXQ, the Discovery Institute is ON RECORD IN COURT as being guilty of fraud.

I've not read that. Could you provide a citation for this claim, please?

[westprog]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Yes, yes, we know--some religions, and some members of most of the hard-line religions, accept facts. HOWEVER, the fact that some do is irrelevent to my point. The ones who don't are trying to creat a theocracy, and have stated as much. Their first step is getting us to accept Creationism in schools. The fact that some people in England aren't in no way invalidates this.

That's not my argument. I'm well aware that there are people who want the USA to be more of a theocracy. I'm making the point that having a religious faith and wanting a theocracy are not necessarily equivalent.