Skip to main content

View Diary: I am going to disagree slightly with Charles M. Blow (32 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I read the article and agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, TheDuckManCometh

    that it is pretty lukewarm in its criticism of a party that seems to embrace as a core principle the idea that "the people" are better off if their "pursuit of happiness" entails a right not just to remain ignorant but to be perpetually in emotional turmoil in a world in which societies advance due to their scientific and technological progress (and in developing a body politic that is educated in-kind). I believe the "separation of church and state" as envisioned by the republic's founders was meant to be absolute, which would negate the existence of any ties between the state and "faith-based" initiatives. But that's a whole other discussion. What I was thinking was: Didn't this debate already take place in 19th century England between Huxley and Wilberforce? Or in the Scopes trial in the early 20th century? Perpetual ignorance and emotional turmoil and a political party that stakes its legitimacy and legacy on maintaining this state of affairs. And if the party leadership is cynical (or diabolical) enough to understand that part of the game, as Rubio's disingenuous response seems to suggest, they really should be called out constantly and venomously at every opportunity.

    “I discover myself on the verge of a usual mistake.” ― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

    by dannyboy1 on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 07:40:56 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site