We have an embarrassment of riches here tonight, folks.

First, the chairman of a house sub-committee on science and technology has had a video of him stating that he thinks that embryology, the theory of evolution, and the big-bang theory are “lies straight from the pit of hell” go viral.  The Congressman also expressed his support for the belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

Now, I’m not going to impugn his religious beliefs.  If a person wants to not believe in things like the big-bang theory and evolution in favor of a strict creationist viewpoint, so be it.  But that’s faith, something that requires no rational evidence.  The evidence for faith is what is in your heart and in the everyday holiness of the world around us.  Science, on the other hand, requires evidence.  Maybe the evidence that supports ideas like the big-bang theory or evolution doesn’t convince someone to believe them in the face of their faith, and that’s OK.  There’s still a lot of “We know something happened, but we’re not sure what and why and how” in a lot of science, which is the reason scientists keep searching for more knowledge and the connections between elements of that knowledge.  Faith doesn’t have those holes, because that in which you have faith fills them.

I  find it absolutely acceptable, almost mandatory, that a person of faith use their religion to guide their actions, so I have no problem with the Congressman’s use of his beliefs to guide him in his duties.  If his faith instructs him to be dutiful, just, and loyal to his oath, so much the better.  But a lawmaker’s faith should not be used as a bludgeon to force others to behave in a certain manner, or believe in a certain way, or obey.

If one wishes, such subjects as the big bang theory or evolution can be up for discussion because they can run counter to the faith of some people, both Christians and other believers.  But for a medical doctor to have an issue with embryology, that makes me apply cranium to inlaid oak.  How can you find a religious basis for thinking that the things found by studying actual living embryos are lies?  Also, if you have such a problem with so much of the current prevailing scientific thought, why are you head of a sub-committee that oversees government spending on scientific research?  If you are of more of a theological thinker, maybe there’s a committee on religious, social, or ethical matters that might better fit your point of view and expertise.

Next, we have two politicians in Arkansas who have stuffed their feet so far into their mouthes that their shoes came out the other side.  One opined in a letter to the editor that African-Americans benefited, to one degree or another, from slavery.  The other advocates for the expulsion of all Muslims from the United States.

Wow, OK, let’s take those two one at a time.

The first one, who is a state representative, seems to be taking the “it’s an ill wind that blows no-one any good” stance on one of the biggest crimes of the last millennium by asserting that the descendants of African slaves are better off than they would have been had their ancestors been left in Africa.  To me, that’s like saying “You Native Americans wouldn’t be making so much money from casinos if Europeans had stayed on their side of the pond.”  For someone who holds elected office to espouse this is despicable.  Americans of African heritage are the descendents of the victims of a massive crime.  I don’t follow the “We owe them something” viewpoint, but to insult them by saying that they are fortunate that their ancestors were kidnapped, shipped halfway across the world in conditions that we refuse to inflict on cattle, sold into a life of bonded servitude, and kept that way for generations is beyond the pale.

As for the second gentleman, all I can say is that his idea is short-sighted and stupid.  Are there terrorists, sympathizers, and enablers mixed in with the Muslim population of our country?  Undoubtedly, yes.  There were indeed Japanese, German, and Soviet agents and fellow travelers mixed in with the immigrant and ethnic populations of the 20th century.  But what we lose if we take the simple approach of expelling or just plain rounding up the Muslims is much more than we risk by being vigilant for bad actors among them but not committing mass punishment against them.  Our principle of judging individuals, not ethnic groups, before the law has been violated in the past, and we always came to regret it.  For every Japanese agent who was neutralized by being put into a camp in 1942, many possible Nisei soldiers and workers were lost.  Proposing the deportation of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them citizens, only makes efforts to integrate them and make them a partner in making our shores safe harder.  Following through with it would rob us of a large pool of people whose talents are useful in the fight and would violate one of our basic principles.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’m being tough on the Republicans in this because I believe that the party can do better.  When we get off track and start arguing social matters, we lose.