The Presidential candidates can’t fun fast enough away from reason and toward superstition:
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are eager to talk about religion. But why are they so scared of science?
The two remaining Democratic presidential candidates recently agreed to participate in the Compassion Forum, scheduled for April 13 at Messiah College in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Billed as a conversation on faith and values, the event will be broadcast by the Church Communication Network. It also comes five days before a proposed science debate that was canceled after the candidates refused to participate.
The would-be debate was organized by Science Debate 2008, a coalition of scientists, academics, business leaders and citizens who’ve pushed the candidates to talk about scientific issues that—despite their critical importance to America’s well-being—have been downplayed during the campaign and within the nation’s political discourse.
After Obama declined and Clinton and McCain failed to commit, organizers abandoned the April 18 debate. They’ve now presented the candidates with three alternative May dates prior to the Oregon primaries on May 20.
“These are issues worth discussing,” said Shawn Lawrence Otto, chief executive officer of Science Debate 2008. “Because of the huge impact that science and technology is having on our lives and our policies, voters have a right to assess the candidates on these topics—and candidates have an obligation to tell voters what they’re thinking."
Perhaps it’s hard to pander in an area where it requires one to actually do some research, to know something about the world. Reason, after all, as long since departed the public sphere in this nation.
"Nearly every scientist I’ve spoken to recently says that the next one or two Presidential administrations have a chance to determine the future viability of the planet. Those are dire words, coming from people used to being conservative in their language,” said Otto.
Other issues include stem cell research, drug patents, global disease pandemics, bioterrorism, nanotechnology, population growth, environmental conservation, water shortages, renewable, space exploration and the integrity of government science.
As for why Obama and Clinton are willing to debate moral but not scientific issues, Otto was baffled.
“Is there a greater moral imperative than the ongoing viability of the planet?” he asked. “Science is about practical solutions to moral questions."
Solutions? Since when do our political “leaders” give a shit about SOLUTIONS?
All they care about is power, and money ... preferably more of it for themselves and their friends, and it’s easier to get help rounding up votes from people prone to leaps of faith than from people who ask a bunch of questions.
Obama, Clinton or McCain, either way you’re voting for Worshipper in Chief, and that ole’ time religion is the easiest path to power.