…and this is a 
Good ol' MnGOP
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: April 20, 2006 1:21 AM, by PZ Myers
You really must take a look at the Republican Party of Minnesota Permanent Platform. It's full of interesting goodies.
There are 19 items in the section on civil rights: ten of them are various permutations of "NO ABORTION!"; two are against gun control; one is to protect people from being forced to join labor unions; one promotes the public display of the Ten Commandments; and one is a commendable condemnation of torture and slavery, but with an annoying qualifier.
Condemning religious, political and ethnic persecution in any country, specifically the oppression, slave labor, torture and murder of religious believers.
I guess oppression, slave labor, torture and murder of the godless warrants only a "meh."
There's also the usual insistence that marriage is between a man and a woman only, there shouldn't even be civil unions or any legal equivalent between same-sex couples, and a new one to me: they want a "Covenant Marriage" option…as if fundamentalists weren't more prone to divorce than many of us others.
Here's the one that really gets me, though.
Protecting educators from disciplinary action for including discussion of creation science, adopting science standards that acknowledge the scientific controversies pertaining to the theory of evolution.
There isn't anything in there about improving science education, or even an acknowledgment of the importance of science; just this lame stance excusing bad teachers for peddling nonsense in the classroom. It's official. It's in the state party platform. Minnesota Republicans are creationists.
Comments
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it." - Voltaire
Posted by: Jeremy | April 20, 2006 1:40 AM
I could get behind the "not being forced to join labor unions" thing. My school voted in a union a couple years back while I was on fellowship (and thus not eligible to vote). Now that I'm a TA, my wages are garnished for union dues whether I like it or no. The union has made a huge deal about how they got us a discount on our health insurance, but I can't help noticing that the dollar amount of the discount almost exactly matches the dollar amount of the dues I have no choice but to pay. And it seems that the insurance discount was poised to go through due to entirely independent factors and wasn't actually a "gift" from the union after all. So, you know, thanks guys!
I mean, that said, I understand that at many schools, and for grad students in many departments, unions can and do provide more substantial benefits. But, I'm sure as hell pissed that I didn't get to make the decision to support this on my own. I'd be a lot friendlier to the union if I was a member by choice. And if they were, you know, not worthless hypocrites about their funding.
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | April 20, 2006 1:44 AM
What the hell is Covenant Marriage? Once I saw an advertisement on TV for a Covenant Wealth Building package. I don't know what the hell Covenant Wealth is either, but I'm guessing it isn't the answer to "WWJD?".
Posted by: Dustin | April 20, 2006 2:05 AM
the key words here are
protecting educators from disciplinary action for...adopting science standards that acknowledge the scientific controversies pertaining to the theory of evolution.
this sentense assumes the premise that "intelligent design" or other arguments of that ilk are "scientific" controversies, when, in fact, they are philosophical (at best) or theosophical (most probably) controversies, and not scientific at all.
Posted by: skippy | April 20, 2006 2:06 AM
Dustin:
Covenant Marriages are marriages where you can only get divorced because of abuse, felony with jail time, or adultery. Wikipedia info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage
PZ:
Geez, I'm just glad this hasn't spread to Virginia yet. The GOP here is mainly concerned about gun control and fighting back the evil gay horde. They've left science alone for the most part.
Posted by: RCP | April 20, 2006 2:32 AM
" ... adopting science standards that acknowledge the scientific controversies pertaining to the theory of evolution. ..... "
Well, what's the problem?
Ther are NO scientific controversies pertaining to the theory of evolution.
There are plenty of religious excuses, bu t no scientific ones.
I suggest that the "Republicans" in that state, refer to either or both the "Kitzmiller" decision, and/or to Prof Jones' lecture at the Royal Society.
I suggest that Minnesota residents point this out to them.
I'd be interested in their replies!
Posted by: G. Tingey | April 20, 2006 2:57 AM
This sounds like perfect fodder for a latter-day Scopes who wants to pick a fight. I can just imagine a teacher getting hauled up before the Star Chamber (er, School Board). The inquisitor demands to know, "Why haven't you been teaching the scientific controversies pertaining to the theory of evolution?"
"Well, I mentioned the argument about gradualism versus punctuated equilibrium...."
"We don't care about the details. We want to know why you haven't been teaching the controversies which plague Darwinism at its very heart!"
"I was told to teach all the scientific controversies that exist, and there just aren't any."
It's like that old book about Ireland, whose shortest chapter is the one on snakes. "Snakes in Ireland: there aren't any."
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 20, 2006 3:47 AM
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:En8sRRKsBu0J:www.theglobeandmail.com/bnfiles/politics/2004/Conplatform2004.pdf+canada+conservative++party+platform&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3
The Conservative party of Canada seems so much more.. sane.. Not even a mention of religion!
Posted by: Gilgamesh | April 20, 2006 7:37 AM
Er, I think that probably covers the majority of them now in one form or another.
Nothing like forcing two people who don't love each other to stick it out to the end or stick around long enough until one or the other does one of the above. But still at least it is somewhat more sensible unlike the absurd catholic position.
Posted by: Uber | April 20, 2006 8:46 AM
Ah how the distrust and hate of real government leads to the oppression that was sought to be avoided...
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 20, 2006 8:51 AM
Gilgamesh -
Trust me, the CPC in Canada is very much a mirror of the GOP in the US right now. Their policy documents are carefully worded, but their actions speak quite differently.
(They're working very hard to keep the wingnuts muzzled right now)
Posted by: Grog | April 20, 2006 9:16 AM
After reading the platform, the main position that I appreciate is that according to the platform, the republicans will support my right to carry an unregistered concealed weapon in order to protect myself from the fundamentalists and republicans.
Posted by: Christian | April 20, 2006 9:32 AM
the republicans will support my right to carry an unregistered concealed weapon in order to protect myself from the fundamentalists and republicans.
My thoughts exactly!
When they come with their bibles and shackles, I'll be ready with my shotgun. >:D
Posted by: thelemurgod | April 20, 2006 9:49 AM
First off: I feel dirty after reading this trash from the Minn. Repubs.
Secondly: consider the following:
"Adopting policies that reflect the principle that every innocent human being, born and unborn, has an inalienable right to life from conception to natural death."
"Abortion without exception is wrong..."
"...legislative guarantees and protection of the father's inalienable right to decide against any unilateral or preemptive decision to terminate his child's developing life."
So, here we are. Forced pregnancies. A man can rape a woman and force her to carry the child to birth. Brilliant.
This is so incredibly myopic.
Posted by: Dunesong | April 20, 2006 10:00 AM
This is so incredibly myopic.
.
Why ? It's a clever strategy... for someone so repugnant that no woman would voluntarily stay with him...
Posted by: T_U_T | April 20, 2006 10:36 AM
> the absurd catholic position
Much as I hate to defend the Catholic Church, they do allow people to get their marriages annulled, which has almost always been there, and these days I think you can even pretty much get no-fault annulments, in practice at least, if not in theory. It's probably still a huge ridiculous pain in the ass and you have to talk an appropriate religious official into giving you permission, but it's not as bad as the stereotype suggests.
Besides, I think most everyday American Catholics probably just get their divorces in the courts and don't worry about the church thing.
It's still stupid of course, but less stupid than people tend to think.
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | April 20, 2006 11:00 AM
Gilgamesh: Unfortunately, the PM and leader of the federal Conservatives is a Straussian, so one shouldn't believe anything they say. One should be skeptical of policians in general, of course, but since Straussians believe in one of the worst inventions of a philosopher ever, one shouldn't believe them period. (Straussians have adopted the Platonic/Nietzschian notion of the "noble lie".)
Dunesong: Not only that, but no euthanasia, mercy killings or "lettings die" either, because of that weasel word "natural".
Posted by: Keith Douglas | April 20, 2006 11:01 AM
I didn't stereotype it, I said it ridiculous to think marriages don't and can't end. In practice they are even more ridiculous and they didn't always do this.
That I agree with, virtually all polls on this topic show Catholics over 80% feel this doctrine is incorrect.
No, I think it's even more stupid once you examine it. But we're arguing about degrees of stupidity here aren't we:-)
Posted by: Uber | April 20, 2006 11:08 AM
I have to agree about Canadian Conservatives. These people are just as evil and creepy as the GOP, they are just forced to hide it better.
As for covenant marriage, I think the fact that less than 2% of couples (in states that offer it) choose to do this speak volumes. It is puzzling though, because I don't think this service is available for regular marriages.
Posted by: JP | April 20, 2006 11:29 AM
Keith - The formal term might be Straussian, but I prefer the more concise term "Bloody Lying Bastard" - it seems to encapsulate both his words and actions. (But then, I don't like Harper in the least)
Posted by: Grog | April 20, 2006 11:33 AM
Bloody Lying Bastard
Bloody Lying Bastard with pseudophilosopical excuses for being lying bastards ...
Posted by: T_U_T | April 20, 2006 11:43 AM
"I have to agree about Canadian Conservatives. These people are just as evil and creepy as the GOP, they are just forced to hide it better."
You guys are right I'm sure.. I'm just glad they feel the need to hide it right now :)
Posted by: Gilgamesh | April 20, 2006 12:20 PM
Isn't an annullment a statement that the marriage never existed in the first place? That always seemed much stranger to me than a divorce. Even if the marriage started out well, even if children were produced, it never really happened? Um-hm.
It will be interesting to see what happens to these covenant marriages down the road. We don't get along any more, but one of us has to bite the bullet and have an affair so that we can end it(??) Another win for family values!
Seems constitutionally shaky, as well. Can the state force certain people to hold to different legal standards than others, just because of something they signed many years ago?
Posted by: Carlie | April 20, 2006 1:11 PM
"Isn't an annullment a statement that the marriage never existed in the first place? That always seemed much stranger to me than a divorce. Even if the marriage started out well, even if children were produced, it never really happened? Um-hm."
Yes. Doctrinally, an annullment means that the marriage was invalid ab initio and therefore never happened. It's only supposed to be granted if there's some theological defect in the marriage, which includes failure to consumate but excludes things like rape, abuse, etc.
Posted by: Samnell | April 20, 2006 1:24 PM
F. Requiring sexual abstinence to be taught in public schools, that premarital and extra marital sex is wrong, and that the use of contraceptives is not safe sex. . . . Q. The Eddie Eagle Gun Safety Program be made available annually in every Minnesota elementary and middle school.
So teaching high school kids how to protect themselves w/r/t sex is a lost cause, but teaching elementary school kids to handle firearms is okay?
Mind, I think gun safety classes are great--you shouldn't have guns without taking one. But I don't get why people who understand that ignorance is unsafe in one area can't figure out that it's unsafe in another.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 20, 2006 1:54 PM
Re covenant marriage: Up until the 70s, here in NY (and other places, I suppose) you could only get divorced for adultery. Which is why in old movies, people were always hauling off to Reno, where they only required a 6-week residency. But the other way to split up was that one of the spouses had to pretend to be unfaithful (as in, speaking of old movies, Fred Astaire being mistaken for a hired co-respondent in "The Gay Divorcee").
Or they could be actually unfaithful and arrange to get caught at it. The machinations were degrading and naturally, the adulterer as guilty party would be crucified in court. It was a pain-in-the-neck way of splitting the sheets, which is why they finally changed the law (just in time for Baby's First Divorce: a nice, civilized no-fault in my case).
But anyway, that's what these people are setting themselves up for--not better marriages, just nastier splits than other people. Either way, I'm sure no one will get more than one covenant marriage.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 20, 2006 2:18 PM
I was just looking into Covenant marriages in Louisiana, and it seems like it's not a huge burden. The way I read it, you're just waiving the ability to get a "no-fault" divorce. You can still get a divorce for all the standard reasons, or if you've been living apart for a year.
(Lousiana fell through due to lack of time, so we're getting married back home in New York, which ironically is the only state that still doesn't have no-fault divorce.)
Anyway, the more time Minnesota Republicans spend working on this, the less time they'll have to work on stuff that's genuinely evil. So I'd like to encourage them. Although I do think there's a need for a great deal of debate over some of the finer points of the law, like what font size to use on the forms.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | April 20, 2006 2:37 PM
But isn't that just less civilized? Why drag either persons baggage through the public record?
Posted by: Uber | April 20, 2006 2:46 PM
Do they have some of the wacky stuff in there from the Texas platform like a return to the gold standard for our currency?
My wife & I pretty much stopped going to our Unitarian Church after the other thirty-something adults jumped on me for making fun of the Texas republican platform. Little did they realize that Wiccan, neo-hippy libertarians like them would still be first up against the wall when the Bible Base takes over.
Posted by: Sean | April 20, 2006 3:06 PM
Doctrinally, an annullment means that the marriage was invalid ab initio and therefore never happened. It's only supposed to be granted if there's some theological defect in the marriage, which includes failure to consumate but excludes things like rape, abuse, etc.
Doctrinally, yes; in practice, the process is full of abuses. My friend Bob's dad dumped his wife for a good Catholic girl(TM) who wanted the whole church wedding thing, so he had to have his marriage annulled in order to remarry in the Church. Enough cash exchanged hands, and that whole pesky 5 kids thing didn't stand in the way of declaring that there never had been a marriage.
I like to remind Bob that while many people are uncredentialed bastards, he's officially certified :).
Posted by: RavenT | April 20, 2006 3:08 PM
Sean,
That surprises me. At my UU church, making fun of Republicans is an almost full time activity. Must be different in Texas, weird.
...darth
Posted by: darthWilliam | April 20, 2006 3:12 PM
chaos_engineer & Uber: In practical terms, a divorce on the grounds that you've been living apart for a year is effectively no-fault.
It's not particulary burdensome either, since divorcing couples are almost always living apart anyway, well before they get their final decree.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 20, 2006 7:19 PM
"Doctrinally, yes; in practice, the process is full of abuses."
Sure. I don't think there's a procedure in the Catholic church that isn't full of abuses, especially the kind that you can bribe a priest for. My own parents were a "good Catholic boy" (atheist at age eight) and a "Protestant harlot". They agreed with the priest that they would baptize and raise any kids Catholic in order to get a wedding at the main altar. Four years later, largely for the sake of my mother's vaguely-Christian-but-not-picky sensibilities I got the dunk from the original Club of Rome and that was the end of that. Apparently the decision to send me to public schools involved the explicit concern that they would not be in the business of teaching me religion.
This was the late 70s and early 80s. I've heard from more recent mixed marriages that if you go in demanding, the average priest takes the money and doesn't care.
Posted by: Samnell | April 20, 2006 11:08 PM
This post inspired me to look for a document outlining the Maryland GOP's platform, but I can't find one.
The charitable explanation is that their web site is poorly organized or that the search tool doesn't work properly. A less charitable explanation is that they think putting such a document online would cost them votes.
Posted by: arensb | April 21, 2006 1:03 PM