Sunday, August 06, 2006

An Intelligible Design

Very littlle has been said lately about the past Kansas Primary, but I think myself it is profound in it's implications. Kansas is as a state amongst the reddest of the red. Look at any detailed election map and I would guess you would see very little there in the way of blue, or even purple. You might see a slight shade in kansas City, and I am betting that is questionable.

Yet, in this last primary, Conservative Republicans went down to a stunning defeat for school board elections, seemingly based on their approval of new classroom standards that question the legitimacy of the theory of evolution.

Five seats were on the line, and in the end, it looks like at best, the anti-evolution conservatives will maintain a hold on only five of the ten seats. One exception to the state wide trend was the victory of Conservtive Republican John Bacon, yet this was made possible in part due to the fact that he had two Pro-Evolution opponnents who split their votes.

Even Conservative Democrats are in trouble. Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat and supporter of the teaching of evolution in science classes, defeated a conservative Democratic opponent.

So, what does all this mean? Is this dissatisfaction with Republican Conservative policy limited to this one issue, or is it indicative of a larger trend?

Are Kansans becomming dissatisfied with the Republican Party in general, or just their overall position on social issues, or is it limited to mere anger at this one issue? This insistence on the discarding of evolution and teaching the creationist version known as Intelligent Design-not as a philosophical prospect in a comparative religion or social studies context-but as science.

Kansans might not believe that man descended from the apes, but they evidently don't appreciate their elected officials making asses out of them either.

6 comments:

autogato said...

Either way, it's good news. Movement away from public rule by conservative religious groups is always a great thing. Secular nation...secular nation...secular nation. Lovely, eh?

Ah yes, I enjoy being a church goer who believes firmly in separation of church and state.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I wish I was around when you went to church and I had one of those old time vaudeville comedy theatre hooks, I'd reach out and pull you back before you made it through the door. Yeah, I know, Muffin would probably kick my ass, but at least I could say I tried.

For now, the best I can do is advise you to keep your opinions to yourself when you go there, if you want to fit in with them. Especially when it comes to things like abortion. Otherwise you'll always be an outsider to them at best. Expressing a Pro-Choice philosophy would be the surest way to get yourself an icy reception every time you go in the door.

Besides it's really none of their business what you do or what you support (or oppose) when you're not there, right?

Rufus said...

I think there is a movement away from some of these people, who have become weirder than the moonies. If the Democrats could find some better candidates/positions, they'd have it made. But, sadly, I'm not holding my breath for that.

SecondComingOfBast said...

I always said that issues like this only hurt the Democrats in close elections. It's other positions they take that keep those elections close to begin with, when they shouldn't be.

Rufus said...

I think they need to start moving the goalposts back a bit. They let the Republicans frame the debates and then pretend to be the moderate right, which nobody believes anyway. So why not go to the left and take their lumps for it? At least they'd seem geniune then.

SecondComingOfBast said...

The problem with that is if they moved too far to the left they could never get elected. Democrats should stand for progressive issues, but they need to discard some of their nuttiness like yesterdays trash.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what causes them to lose elections that they should win, as oppossed to what just might be controversial enough to cause them to lose only in close elections.