I'll concur with others that your post is good, but that doesn't mean I agree with everything in it! :-)
#####The GOP has been far smarter than the Dems, except perhaps Bill Clinton, in building coalitions. They are currently splintering, mostly because of the hubris of religious right.#####
Gotta disagree! The GOP is in trouble right now because of RINOs who support big spending, oppose protecting the borders, want to reward illegal aliens with amnesty, and a variety of other issues. Whenever the GOP moves leftward, it sinks. We could include the Harriet Miers nomination in this category had President Bush not corrected his mistake with Sam Alito. The religious right is the most loyal constituency the GOP has. That's why the GOP feels it can ignore them, even betray them, and still count on their loyalty. Secular, "moderate" Republicans are far less loyal. A lot is made here of the fact that the pro-ID Dover GOP school board was ousted in favor of leftist Democrats, but that's because secular Republicans sided with the Democrats over conservative Republicans. In contrast, liberal Republican Arlen Specter won re-election in Pennsylvania because conservatives limited their opposition to him to intra-party activities. They fought him in the primary, but when he won it, they backed him in the general election.
If a secularist Republican beats a Christian Republican in a primary, Christian voters will support the secularist in the general election because of party loyalty, but a Christian who beats a secularist in a GOP primary always has to worry about the secularist's backers defecting to the Democrat in the general election.
Even Barry Goldwater, when he became militantly secularist after marrying a leftist woman in his old age, caused the GOP to temporarily lose a U.S. House seat in Arizona. When a pro-life Republican beat a pro-abortion Republican in the primary in Goldwater's home district, he endorsed Karan English, a hardcore left-wing feminist Democrat. She won the election, using Goldwater's endorsement to tar her opponent as someone trying to impose a theocracy on America.
####BTW, intruding religious beliefs into science class is not a 'mild request' in the minds of scientists.####
If science is truly neutral on religion as claimed, the requests of critics of evolution wouldn't ruffle many feathers.
If science is clueless regarding God's existence or non-existence, then a few minutes of class time discussing this fact wouldn't hurt anything.
If science is truly neutral on religion as claimed, the requests of critics of evolution wouldn't ruffle many feathers.
This point seems to keep spinning around and around. If there is a scientific basis for that criticism, then I would expect science to consider it. But since the basis of the criticism is purely religious, why should that be addressed by science?
If science is clueless regarding God's existence or non-existence, then a few minutes of class time discussing this fact wouldn't hurt anything.
Again, why is the burden of faith-reinforcement being placed upon science? Spending a few minutes in church discussing the lack of evidence for God's existence wouldn't hurt anything either. Since the faith of many of us requires no proof, this wouldn't (and doesn't) change that faith. But to some whose faith might be weak, it could have serious repercussions.
Instead, let's let theologians discuss God in church in the manner they see fit, and let scientists/teachers discuss nature in science class.
I have been involved in Republican politics for a whole lot of years, and you couldn't be more wrong. The religious right is the most fickle constituency that the GOP has. I have honestly lost count of the number of times that the religious right has openly supported pro-life democrats over pro-choice republicans, stayed home from a convention or other meeting because none of "their" topics were being addressed (sometimes resulting in no quorum), refused to vote in a race because the republican "doesn't go to the right church", maliciously put a spoiler in a primary for the same "not the right church" reason, etc. They are the most inconsistent and undependable voting block that the GOP has.
That is absolutely wrong. If the Christian canditate loses, the majority of them wont vote in that race (if the GOP is lucky). They cannot be depended on to vote GOP unless their candidate wins the primary. Furthermore, if their candidate loses the primary they go ballistic on Republican Party staff, claiming that the GOP is anti-christian, atheists, marxists, satanists, etc.
I used to work for the Republican Party. Many of the hundreds of phone calls that I fielded from the religious right after they lost a primary were downright vile. They can NOT be depended on to vote for the candidate that beat them, and often vote against him/her, especially if that candidate is pro-choice.