I'd like a large State meal, hold the Church.

This is the 'straw that broke the camels back' for me in starting this blog. I've tossed the idea around for a while, but this is what spurred me into action. 3/25/09 - one month ago - at the U.S. House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, John Simkus (R) Illinois Representative speaks to the committee:

You may be shaking your head after this. It is kind of dizzying. In case you didn't catch it - or in case somebody pulls the youtube video - here's some highlights:

He quotes from the bible: Genesis 8:21-22:

I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

And Matthew 24:

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

He says:

the earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood

and

Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon

and

I believe that god's word is infallible. Unchanging. Perfect.

Let's examine this. First off, he's reciting from a bible - in Congress - as a purpose for making decisions in legislation. He begins by praising the first amendment which grants him free speech, but promptly steps on the piece of the same amendment that provides the separation between church and state. Ironically, the separation of church and state is stated in the first amendment BEFORE the freedom of speech ... but that's neither here nor there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

OK. So he's reciting from the bible in a more relaxed discussion in congress. He's not proposing a law or anything, so we'll let it fly and not call him "unconstitutional" (though I'd be more confortable with a Representative who believed more in the inerrancy of the constitution than the bible). He's not exactly being very tolerant of his non-christian constituents, but he has every right to express his religious convictions.

In doing so, he basically establishes himself as a breed of fundamentalist: he believes in the inerrancy of the bible. That the words from Genesis to Revelations are infallible and perfect. That the words are directly from god and should be obeyed to the letter. I won't get into the whole "dashing baby's heads into walls" or "killing your children for talking back to you" parts of the bible ... but I find his religious beliefs very disturbing in the context of him being an American Legislator doing Legislation Legislatively. With his statement of beliefs, along with the scripture that he quotes, he is basically saying that we should just sit back and not do anything about the environment. The world is going to end when God chooses, and there's nothing we can do about it. Global warming is a myth, because God promised that he wouldn't flood us out again. If a flood were to occur, the eyes of billions of people would be lying to them because the Bible says it can't happen.

Now here is where it gets really really good. In the same breath - he goes on to talk about scientific terms of PPM (parts per million - most likely a measure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - though he never specifies) - saying that In "dinosaur times", the measure of was closer to 4000 PPM. I don't want to get on the topic of what a measurement of 4000 PPM would mean for our everyday lives, though I think we'd like it a lot less than the dinosaurs. I want to talk about the dinosaurs.

Dinosaur Times.

Where in the bible does it talk about dinosaurs? This man is taking bits and pieces of science, and merging it into his literalist theological world view... which is a recipe for disaster. And ridicule. Let's make fun of the ignorant ass.

If the bible is inerrant, then man existed in the first week of the existence of Earth, and therefore at the same time as dinosaurs. Scientists today agree that man and dinosaurs never walked the earth together. Apparently, Mr. Simkus' view of the world is less of the bible, and less of real science, and more like Hanna Barbara. (If you're too young to catch the reference, google "yabba dabba doo"). Now ... somewhere between trips to the Buffalo Lodge, taking the foot-car to the drive-in for bronto-ribs, and using bronto's for cranes at the coal mine (which Mr. Simkus has a vested interest in), the great caveman of 6000 years ago was able to piece together the highly specialized and delicate equipment to measure Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere to be 4000 parts per million. Bravo, Fred. Bravo. Have a burger on me.



Can't we please just say that Congress is no place for thelogical debates? Shimkus seems to think that the state of the environment in 2009 is a thelogicial issue, but I really don't see where in the bible it mentions anything about Carbon Dioxide being 388 PPM vs 4000 PPM in the literalist interpretation of the beginning of the world ... let alone the passage that explains what miracle Fred Flintstone made to drop the volume of Carbon Dioxide by an astounding 3600 PPM in a short 6000 years. Why don't we leave the science up to the scientists? From there, can we please forbid thelogical debates that are mixed with faulty, hand-picked pseudoscience? It makes for a fun time of ridiculing people, but I really feel sorry for the Illinois taxpayers who paid this schmuck to give this presentation.

Oh yeah - at the end, this joker brings up the Clean Air Act of 1990 and 4 mines in Illinois that have closed down since then. I do feel bad for the coal miners who lost their jobs, but keep in mind that the Clean Air Act didn't directly put these men out of work. The Clean Air Act put regulations on power plants, who had to limit their Sulfur Dioxide (think acid rain) emissions. Doing so meant using their energy sources more efficiently, which dropped demand and increased selectiveness for coal fuel. Thus the coal market got more selective, and those mines that couldn't provide the best goods at the lowest price got shut down. Directly, it was the free capitalist market that put these guys on the breadline.

Also keep in mind that during the 70's and 80's, acid rain was starting to become a serious problem. Acid rain doesn't eat the flesh off your bones like the term might make you think, but it is quite poisonous and it falls into lakes and streams and fields and forests - killing the wildlife, fauna and poisoning the groundwater. A few unemployed miners ... or a few unemployed lumberjacks (trees really didn't like sulfur dioxide poisoning) ... and thousands of dead fish and animals and people.

So after all this ... one has to wonder: how does a man with deep fundamentalist views, who easily confuses himself by merging literal bible interpretation with pseudoscience and is obviously pro "acid rain" get into Congress? Oh ... ok. He bought it.