If the bookstore wants to put The Demon-Haunted World on the “Inspirational” shelf, I’m completely fine with their decisions.
However, there’s a big difference between an inspirational book of poetry, whether or not it’s religious, and a book that dryly advances a creationist theory about the Grand Canyon, touting the number of scientists who contributed to it, doesn’t seem to belong in that section. Don’t they have a “myths and folktales” section?
My other problem with this is that the Park Service has an aura of authority about it: people really don’t expect to find the Park Service peddling junk science. In this case, that’s literally what they’re doing. There’s a real danger that people will see the book there and think that, by dint of its being in a Park Service store, it’s been vetted and approved.
I don’t buy the argument that it’s there primarily because it sells well. Originally, it was in the geology section, which speaks to a pretty bizarre mindset among the authorities. Besides, if Playboy did a “Women of the Grand Canyon” calendar, do you think it’d be allowed to be sold in the bookstore no matter how much of a moneymaker it’d be? I’m pretty skeptical.
Err…in researching the link to go in that sentence, I kinda forgot where I was going with it. Insert a “which” before “doesn’t,” and it’ll make sense again.
As a person who occasionally nitpicks as well I appreciate this post. Besides, this is a point worth noting, but regardless of the grammar and punctuation the word “creator” obviously refers to a higher power which by today’s absurd standards would make the founding fathers guilty of forcing religion down the throats of the masses. They weren’t, and the examples mentioned in this thread aren’t either.
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
Besides, if Playboy did a “Women of the Grand Canyon” calendar, do you think it’d be allowed to be sold in the bookstore no matter how much of a moneymaker it’d be? I’m pretty skeptical.[/QUOTE
Now, that’s m idea of inspiration!
I find the “junk science” argument a lot more compelling than a first amendment argument in this case. But that makes it even more an issue to be decided by the legislature rather than the courts.
Generic references to a creator or unspecified god is one thing. Such has been consistently upheld by the SCOTUS.
A book supporting the specific creationist view of a well-known religious sect is quite another.
I acknowledge this is a gray area. Whether the SCOTUS would take the case is not at issue here. But there is ample reason to be troubled by the Bush’s administrations subtle but apparent support for creationist myth making, and the degree to which his administration tries to concatenate religion and government.
While I agree with your overall conclusion, I wouldn’t based it on aspects of the DoI, which was written long before the Constitution and can’t really be used in any constitutional issue. I would personally prefer that the constitution was more explicit about the “separation of church and state”. But that fact is it isn’t, and until we amend it to be so, it is what it is-- a requirement only that Congress make no law establishing a religion.
The plaques would not require a little snippet saying “provided to allow equal time for the Koran”. The current plaques were simply donated by an order of nuns 30 odd years ago.
You go round up a smattering of Muslims and whip up a series of plaque you feel would be appropriate to natural wonder. With a little looking I like 50.7 “And the earth, We have made it plain and cast in it mountains and We have made to grow therein of all beautiful kinds”
By the way did you ever find a book list for your author friend?
Yeah–before when I said I couldn’t explain why it squicked me out, I think this is why. The more I think about it, the more i think the book should be classified under geology. It’s putting forward an argument that’s primarily geological in nature, and its Amazon blurb says that it’s essays by 50 scientists.
They’re making a scientific argument. And that’s how the book should be classified.
Of course, not all scientific arguments are equal, and as far as that goes, this one pretty much blows. (I am assuming it’s on par with other YEC arguments I’ve read; there’s an eensy chance that this one is persuasive, but I’ll keep my assumption until shown otherwise). It’s terrible science. I wouldn’t want the new CDC Museum to stock a book that claimed AIDS was not casued by HIV, or for the NASA museum to stock a book about alien abductions. When government bookstores stock science books, I want them to be stocking good books.
Again, this is different from stocking books that are primarily religious, such as books of poetry. A book that contained the Dalai Lama’s ruminations on the Grand Canyon would be fine; a book glorifying all of God’s creation as exemplified by the Grand Canyon would be just peachy.
There’s one other category that I think needs to be held suspect: polemic books. I’m not real sure how I feel about them. Should the bookstore have books advocating damming the GC for hydroelectric needs? What about books calling for turning much of the American West into a wilderness preserve? Would a book called “Bush’s Suck-Ass Environmental Record” be an appropriate book to sell there? What about “How Tree-Hugging Communists Are Destroying America”? My inclination is to say that the Park Service isn’t an appropriate place for books that advocate highly controversial positions like that, in either direction. And a book that implicitly claims that evolutionists are all wrong could easily fall into that category.
All that said, the only way I see this becoming a Constitutional issue is if it becomes clear the book is only there because of its religious argument. If it’s clear that a book with similarly shitty science wouldn’t be in the store if it didn’t advance creationism, then we need to consider whether Park Service employees are illegally using government resources to advance a religious position.
Maybe it’s just a case of people finally getting fed-up, tired of keeping our mouths shut and being preached to by everyone on every side and saying enough! If they put up big plaques reading, “This canyon was created by nature—all gods and religions are myths and fairy tales,” you bet there’d be some “hurt feelings.”
Well, I didn’t mean that the DoI should be the backbone of the argument. I was merely using the DoI has an example of a generic mention of God by the very people that wrote the Constitution. My point all along was just that people want to use the first amendment’s limitation of the federal government’s power when it comes to religion to an extreme point that is way beyond the intention of the founders.
Do you agree, though, that books that advance a shitty scientific argument in the hopes of supporting a specific and denominational religious argument may not have a place on the shelves of a Park Service bookstore? That’s hardly the same thing as trying to excise “Creator” from the DoI, or even removing plaques from the Grand Canyon–both of which I would oppose.
This logic has a hole in it the size of Alaska. For the plaque to declare that all religions are a myth would be the government taking a hard stance on religion by telling us what is right, wrong, true, and false. To simply quote from a religious text doesn’t state or even imply that the government is officially declaring the passage to be the infallible words of God that we all should live our lives by. No where did the plaque state “This comes from the Bible, the Holy book of the Christian faith which is the only true religion” Can’t you see the difference in the two?
Not really. The key phrase here was “in hopes of”. Let them sell books about whatever they want and let the sheep decide for themselves what they want to buy, read, and believe. Money talks. If enough people boycott the books and no one is buying them they will disappear from the shelves and be replaced with something that will sell. If they become popular and a lot of people buy them thats fine too. The money will support the park and no one gets hurt. I just don’t see the reason to get all up in arms over it.
Yes, money talks–but so does education. Would you similarly have no problem with the CDC’s selling a book claiming that AIDS wasn’t caused by HIV? What if Stone Mountain, GA sold a book glorifying the Klan’s early years? (Not such a stretch, if you’ve ever been to that park) Would you be all right with NASA selling a “nonfiction” book about alien abductions?
I’d object to all of these cases, because I believe that the Park Service has an educational responsibility; by putting forth blatantly false information, they’re not fulfilling that responsibility. They do NOT have a responsibility to maximize profits.
Back in the '50s, we had worked out a “Judeo-Christian” cultural compromise in America, whereby priests, ministers and rabbis would all give their inoffensive invocations at public events and high-school football games. But there were still important religious differences and tensions between Jews, Catholics, and the various Protestant denominations.
That was a long time ago. Today, the important cultural divide in America is between those who are traditionally and deeply religious and those who are not. Ultraconservative Jews, Catholics and Protestants are all in a political and cultural alliance, sometimes informal, sometimes formal.
Could conservative Muslims eventually join that alliance? Somehow, I think not. I could be wrong. But it seems to me the differences in world-view there are just too wide to bridge.
You raise a very good point. I would object to the display and selling of literature which could potentially contain life-threatening information such as your example. There does need to be a line drawn in the sand at some point I suppose, but I just see this book as being on the safe side of the line. No one gets hurt by this book being on the shelf. I am sure there are others there with the more scientific explanations in them. Its not like the book that mentions the Biblical flood is on an ornate pedestal in the center of the room with dual spotlights shining on it and violins playing softly in the background when you approach. Its just one book with one view point among many, and some people actually agree with it. Nothing says that John Q. Customer should put any more precedence on this book than any other on the shelf.
I agree that this book doesn’t spell The Doom of Rational Thought; as issues go, it’s pretty small. But as small issues go, the Park Service is in the wrong :).
Sure, nothing says John Q. Customer should put more precedence on this than any other book on the shelf. However, I believe that there shouldn’t be books on the shelf of a Park Service bookstore that contain lousy science: I believe that most folks who enter the bookstore will believe (and should believe) that the Park Service isn’t selling snake oil, that when you buy a nonfiction book there, you’re going to be buying a quality source of information.
I suspect that you’re just more pro-free-market than I am. This is not, IMO, a place that where the free market ought to be making the decisions; I think it’s a place where the Park Service’s educational mission ought to take priority.