A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

OK, I guess I misread your question. Nonetheless, global or not, I'll
venture that most of us outside of the USA would prefer a president
more in tune with our own values.

Of course you would. But what makes you think that you represent most of
anything?

Like so many in the blue states, we
"don't get" the value systems of red state voters.

Stupidity is its own reward I guess.

We get New York. We
get LA. We understand SF, Boston, Seattle, and Portland.

You can have all of the above. Take them, please.

But we're left
scratching our heads at what goes on in Kansas.

Primates often scratch their heads when confronted with the manifestations
of intelligent thought.


You're of course right, whether or not a Kansas school board mandates
the teaching of creationism in science classes, is of no global
consequence to the rest of us. In a similar sense, whether women in
Afghanistan are required to wear a burka or not seems of little global
import. Or maybe not.

Indeed.


Perhaps you felt outrage at the sight of women in Afghanistan being
required to wear burkas. Now bottle that outrage and think about it.
That's the outrage many feel when they hear that intelligent science
teachers in Kansas are forced to teach religious doctrine in science
classes. This is SCIENCE fer crissake! This is about the scientific
method and a canon of knowledge derived through that method. The
dictates of the Kansas school board are as medieval as the dictates of
the Taliban. If you want religion, set up religion classes. But don't
ask science teachers teach what they know to be blatantly false.

Well, there's a difference between teaching that creationism is truth and
teaching that creationism exists as a theory. In case you missed it, the
requirements were not that creationism be taught as the only truth, but
merely that creationism be presented as an alternate theory to the theory of
evolution. Presenting both sides of a debate is called "academic inquiry,"
and it is through examination of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides
that truth and understanding is arrived at. Censoring one side of the
argument merely because secularist dogma dismisses the theory is just as
offensive as censoring discussion of evolution by theocratic dogmatists.

Besides, there is still a good deal of scientific debate about "intelligent
design" versus "random evolution." I've been reading a most interesting
science-fiction book called "Calculating God" by Robert Sawyer, that brings
up a number of questions about whether the Universe is the result of
intelligent design or not. I highly recommend it as a thought-provoking
essay on the subject.

I guess I still haven't answered your question regarding things of
major "global" import (I'll get to that another time, perhaps). Right
now I'm giving you an example of the visceral reactions your president
and his FC followers evoke in people around the globe.

Once again you falsely presume that the only people who agree with President
Bush are fundamentalist Christians.

We don't want to
be dragged back into the Dark Ages. we're quite comfortable in our post
modern world.

You've presented no evidence that this is the intent of the Bush
administration.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser