I mean, do we take seriously a man who wants to put an end to public education in America, whether federal or state? He seems to envision a return to the small, local schoolhouse of the 19th century, or to home-schooling, whereby parents make decisions about what is fit to teach and how it is to be taught. Seriously? He makes a thinly veiled attack on President Obama's supposed religious beliefs in the absurdly misplaced context of prenatal testing, no more informed or creditable than those catering to the malign or ignorant doubts about the president's nationality. He accuses the president of promoting abortion--to save money! He trots out the canard about climate change, insisting that it is not man-made, and that to assert otherwise is to "serve the Earth" instead of acting in a "stewardship" capacity--by exploiting it for the benefit of our superior species. His science seems derived from Old Testament teachings, his reasoning ability from pre-Enlightenment days.
And the problem is far greater and more alarming than just this one deluded individual pandering to those on the far right wing of conservatism, and far greater than the fact that he has reached front-runner status amongst Republican voters. The problem, as I see it, is that this kind of nonsense is discussed by our media representatives as though it made some kind of sense. They do it too much honor. I try to respect the Buddhist principle of "right speech," but right speech does not, surely, include condoning those who lie, or speak half-truths, or simply utter palpable delusions. Right speech, as I see it, requires that I expose such things, when I hear them, for what they are--whether malicious or simply ignorant. Right speech does not require me to remain silent in the face of the demonstrably untrue, but rather to speak out.