Some are trying to make a big deal out of Sarah Palin's religion -- the same people, you may please note, who tried to downplay Obama's religion -- particularly her apparent disbelief in evolution. At the same time that the Anglican Church is trying to apologize for its opposition to Darwin during his lifetime, a significant number of Americans still do not believe in evolution. It seems Palin is one of them.
Now, those of you who have been longtime readers of this blog know what I think about evolution. But I don't think not believing in evolution disqualifies you for political office. It disqualifies you for being a biology teacher, but knowing that life evolved has nothing to do with making good political decisions. I am far more concerned with the fact that Obama does not seem to believe in spontaneous order economies, which is going to have far greater repercussions on our lives if he's elected than does Palin's (dis)beliefs if she's elected Vice President. Palin's religion does not allow her to believe in evolution, but Obama's religion -- government (and dialectical materialism) -- does not allow him to believe in spontaneous order economics. I will note that ironically neither one believe in something explainable and understandable through general systems theory, and that both are in different ways rejecting time-based understandings of the world.
The question is: which silly rejection of reality matters more in a political leader? I'm going to go with rejecting the one who rejects economic reality. That politician is the more dangerous one for the material well-being of everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment