First Things writer R.R. Reno has an excellent article on progressive politics, what it actually is, and how it is dangerous. He especially draws some excellent quotes from Edmund Burke’s writings regarding the French Revolution.

I liked what he had to say here very much:

“Nonetheless, conservatism and progressivism have fundamentally different tendencies as ruling principles. Conservatism wants to protect, nurture, and perfect aspects of the social norms we already have. Drawing its strength from what exists, it has room for dissent. Progressivism pours Agent Orange on the cultural landscape to make space for something new, something it imagines to be better. Seeking what is ideal, it often excludes dissent as a matter of moral principle.”

You will recall that back in ’05 a certain Dr. Sternberg was in the midst of a tizzy regarding his allowing of the publishing of an ID-friendly article by Stephen C. Meyer. There was quite a hullaballo about the whole matter, and subsequent mess was no fun to wade through. Basically, the uproar was over whether Sternberg, a Research Associate at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History, had, because of his personal proclivities and agendas, allowed an article to be published without going through the proper peer-review process (it had). You can read more here. (Normal rules of Wikipedia and grains of salt apply.)

Step foward to today, where a report prepared by staff on the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, entitled Intolerance And The Politicization Of Science At The Smithsonian, has surfaced. In it, allegations are brought against persons at the Smithsonian who, in documented email communications, voiced their intentions to use their positions of authority at the Smithsonian to force Sternberg out as a Research Associate. Allow me to quote a section of the executive summary:

“The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.”

Now ignore for the time being that the report is coming from lame duck Reps. Mike Souder and Rick Santorum, and that their being advocates of Intelligent Design apparently (according to certain sources, anyways) makes every move they make suspect. If the report is correct, is there a problem? Most assuredly so. Government employees should expect to be free from reprisal in any form, much less losing their job, because they hold to a scientific viewpoint that is in dissension with the majority. Now think about what we would expect to see if the roles were reversed. What if the Intelligent Design was the de facto standard for scientists, and Dr. Stenberg fostered the publishing of an article that criticized ID, then his colleagues tried to use their clout to force him to resign. Would we scoff and say “Oh, the report must surely be biased because the representatives are proponents of Darwinian evolution.”? Most assuredly not.

Hopefully the emergence of this report will help to bring to light other instances of scientists being discriminated against because they don’t toe the line with their brethren. In November of 2005, NPR reported that it had “talked with 18 university professors and scientists who subscribe to intelligent design. Most would not speak on the record for fear of losing their jobs. One untenured professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia wrote that talking to NPR would be, quote ‘the kiss of death.’ Another said, ‘There is no way I would reveal myself prior to obtaining tenure.’” (You can view the article and listen to the audio here.)

If you’ve been following the news lately you know how Muslims around the world have responded negatively towards remarks in Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at the university of Regensburg. For the sake of a coherent post, I’ll summarize. In the first part of the speech, Benedict quoted the medieval emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who, in a dialogue with a “learned Persian” said the following:

“Show me just what Mohammad brought that was new and there you will find things only bad and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Now making the assumption that Benedict intended to claim the thoughts and intentions of Palaiologos as his own, Muslims around the world have made death threats, burned the current pope in effigy, and so on (in fairness many of these actions may have been made by extremist groups). The problem is that the quote is taken entirely out of context. The full text of the pope’s speech has hardly anything to do with Islam or Muhammed at all. In fact, it’s a discourse on the proper interworkings of faith and reason. And I must say, it’s quite good. Benedict expounds upon the Greek philosophical roots of reason in Christianity, and the trend towards subjective reinterpreting of the gospel (a stunning indictment of the Emergent movement).

Read more »