Creationism is an essential part of an argument that leads to
control. It supplies us with the premise "God made us. So He meant for
us to do bla bla bla...". Creationism is essential to the argument you
hear from Christian moralists who say "Do as I say, Because it says so
in the Bible and because God made us to obey His Law (Interpeted by
me and through the authority vested in me as a True Believer in Him)."

      The logic is that "IF you believe, as I have told you, that
God made you for a purpose which is to fulfill his laws, which I
will inperpet to you and tell you how to live them, then you must
trust in me", and sometimes "Only in me." And "Don't believe in that
Evolution crap, we have this 'scientific' theory that is better. ( That
atheistic idea that man was not made by God directly to fulfill His
laws, will lead to moral decay, loss of control and chaos)."

>If the second, I would be impressed if you could demonstrate that there is a
>causual relationship between a desire to control others and belief in
>Creationism.

      "Science is Religion, because both are based on faith."
      "Evolution is ONLY a theory. (I have Absolute Knowledge)"
      "I will tell you what to think. Because science cannot
      answer questions finally. I have the final answer and here it
      is: God Created us for a purpose we dare not question and anyone
      who does question this is a Satanist. Only True Christians will
      be saved and I know how you will be saved. Trust in me, alone."

>> The approach is frankly political and the members of
>>certian Christian and related sects in the U.S. are dangerous because
>>their reading of the religious tradition is too political.
>
>  Whoops, hold on here.  I agree that Creationism is a goofy
>attempt at self-deception, but nobody can be considered too
>political here in the US.  You see, thanks to that little
>thing called "Democracy" anybody who want's to get involved
>in politics can, even if their ideas are dumb.

      I am not saying that their free speech needes to be
curbed, but their fund raising, and therefore their clout
with tax-free funds does need to be curbed in a way that the
rest of us have restrictions on how we can use money to buy
into the political processes. Any church activities that are
not related to maintainence of a place of worship or a cherity
should be subject to taxation and money spent on political
campaigns should be regualted according to the laws that govern
business and the welathy.

>  I will support you in any argument against their ideas,
>but I will firmly defend their right to be involved in politics.
>If you start denying peoples rights to do this, what is to stop
>them from doing the same to you?

      I think you misinterpeted what I meant. I meant that they
should pay taxes for activities that are political and not enjoy
the current status of being largely tax exempt. There is a compro-
mise working in our history. Churches got some breaks povided that
they didn't get too powerful politically. By that I mean that there
has been an understanding that chruch properties would not be
taxed if the churches didn't use their wealth to gain an unfair
political advantage. That is changing. There is alot of money,
much of it gotten tax-free, and there is alot of influience for
interests that are numerically small, but disporportionately
powerful because of untaxed assets. The political establishment
will eventually see this discrepancy and begin to curb the
influience of this money, probably through taxation.

>> These are
>>the same people who have taken over the Republican Party, the likes
>>of the Christian Coelition. Creationism is but a small part of
>>a larger reactionary movement centered on Christian rhetoric.
>
>  Well, don't vote for them.  That's what the constitution's all about(*).

      I think that some of these people would suspend the Constitution
if they had a chance. Extremists will enjoy constitutional protections
until they are powerful then they would turn and undermine these. You
have to remember that some of these reactionaries are theocratic and
would not only set up their religion as  established but would move
to restrict those who disagree with them. Usually the idealistic and
utopian sects form enclaves and isolate themselves from the outside.
It would take a full blown 1930's style collapse to percipitate the
Christian reactionary takeover a la "It Can't Happen Here", by Lewis.

>  (*) Okay, not all, but I assume you're intelligent enough to get the point.

      The Republican Party is a pretty major U.S. Institution to possibly
be taken over by a Christian Reactionary element. Maybe that means the
death knell of the GOP. Hopefully the moderates will take over the show
in the next election year when the ultra-Conservatives play out. Then
again if we cede Orange and San Diago Counties to Mexico and let a
neo-Inquisition take over there and clean house on all those crackpot
Protestants and Mormons...... :-) :-)

Bruce Salem