To counteract my previous post on the SBC

Though, I will add, that I read in a recent post by Al Mohler, where he argues that couples who choose to not have children are sinning. He said, "I would argue that it [not having children] ought to be falling short of the glory of God. Deliberate childlessness defies God's will..."

Wow do I feel bad. After all, people like Mohler achieve the glory of god by procreating. I didn't realize it was so simple. Seems like there is even a Bible verse about all of us falling short. Hmm. Evidently, Mohler has found a way around it.

But back to my other post: Robert Reich has a great post on the odd bedfellows of anti-evolution and pro-Social Darwinism. Hat tip to Carlos at Jesus Politics.

"The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash. Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way.

A democracy is imperiled when large numbers of citizens turn their backs on scientific fact. Half of Americans recently polled say they don’t believe in evolution. Almost as many say they believe income and wealth depend on moral worthiness. At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards."

Another link from Carlos led me to a special issue on the religious right in Mother Jones. This blog asked the question why conservative christians were so closely linked to big business and found a pretty convincing answer in MJ.

American churches are to a large degree defined by what they choose to rebel against. The Christian right has set itself in opposition to liberal, secular government and, as a political consequence, declared itself a buddy of big business. The alliance of those two makes historic sense: sects since the Puritans have positioned themselves in relation to capitalism, and couched virtue and sin in commercial terms. And it makes psychological sense: churches that see themselves as bulwarks against the evils of the flesh find colder, sexless endeavors like business and sports more congenial than the suspect domains of sensuality and art.

The conundrum is: the alliance between religion and business makes no religious sense. What will happen on the day American Christians wake up to realize that capitalism is economic Darwinism, that free enterprise is code for individualistic amorality, that the marketplace is the temple of secular humanism? Will they then shift their allegiance to support a more liberal ideal of communal responsibility, and perhaps even become fans of government? The prospect of that shift in religious awareness is one of the great reservoirs of latent energy in the nation’s political landscape.

Both articles, it seems to me, speak to what has always seemed perplexing. Why do so many conservative Christians who see evolution as harmful and wrong, ignore the economic darwinism of capitalism?