Wise Words From Cizik

Bashing religion is fun and all, but occasionally a religious public figure does manage to say something sensible. Here’s one example, as reported by Keith Olbermann on Monday:

Number one, Rich Cizik, the vice president representing the National Association of Evangelicals, after a meeting with a science group, the faithful and the scientists issuing a joint statement insisting, “We must fight global warming immediately.” Quoting Mr. Cizik, “Whether God created the earth in a millisecond or whether it evolved over billions of years, the issue we agree on is that it needs to be cared for today.”

You know, Mr. Cizik, with that kind of thinking, sir, you are going to engender nothing but understanding, cooperation, good feelings, and progress. How dare you, sir? How dare you?

Now that’s a middle ground I can get behind.


  1. #1 argystokes
    January 17, 2007

    but occasionally a relgiious public figure does not manage to say something sensible.

    Presumeably you mean “does manage?”

  2. #2 Jason Rosenhouse
    January 17, 2007

    Yes, that’s what I meant. The error has been corrected. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

  3. #3 outeast
    January 18, 2007

    Yes, that’s what I meant.

    Really? You genuinely meant to say ‘relgiious’?



  4. #4 Jason Rosenhouse
    January 18, 2007

    Doesn’t anyone have anything to say about Mr. Cizik?

  5. #5 Changcho
    January 18, 2007

    What I have to say about R. Cizik’s is this: this is an example of the civil, scientific-religious dialogue discussed in C. Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World.”

  6. #6 Blake Stacey
    January 18, 2007

    I guess we just can’t talk about something unless it makes us upset.

  7. #7 LuckyStrike
    January 18, 2007

    The “backbone” of your point relies on semantical gameplay. Specifically, you and Keith Olbermann utilize the terms “sensible,” “progress,” and “middle ground” to describe the situation, yet none of you specify how you define these terms. Hence, in not defining or explaining the terminology which you use, you are inherently using sliding definitions to misrepresent your bias as neutrality.

    So, really, how do you define “sensible,” “progress,” and “middle ground”? For instance, are you two applauding Rich Cizik’s acceptance of global warming’s existence, Rich Cizik’s willingness to fight global warming with teamwork, or Rich Cizik’s willingness to set aside his Creationist beliefs for the benefit of others?

New comments have been disabled.