Voters should question Gianforte’s “religion”

by Dr. Ed Berry

Montana Rep. Daniel Zolnikov thinks the public does not have the right to ask potential governor candidate Greg Gianforte questions about his religious beliefs.

In his letter to the Billings Gazette, Zolnikov wrote,

“Ehrlick’s piece sets up a false dichotomy where people of deep religious faith cannot possibly support ideas of religious tolerance simply because they have strong faith convictions. I see this as flying in the face of the very important, and very American, belief that we can all be true to our deeply held beliefs, while still treating others with mutual respect.”

Rep. Zolnikov believes questions about Greg Gianforte’s religion violate Article VI of the Constitution,

“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Zolnikov’s position demands we define religion as opposed to science. According to the philosophy of science,

If it’s measurable, it’s science. If it’s not measurable, it’s religion. God and heaven are not measurable. Therefore, they are part of religion. You can believe whatever you wish about God and heaven because we have no way to prove your belief is wrong.

However, if you extend your religion into claims about the world we can measure, then you have entered the world of science and we can test your claims.

Religion is about what we cannot measure. That definition of religion is protected by our constitution.

However, Gianforte publicly extends his religion into the measureable realm of science. He promotes teaching children our earth and universe are 6000 years old.

This part of Gianforte’s beliefs are not religion. They are science. Gianforte’s beliefs about the physical world have been tested and they are wrong.

It does not matter that Gianforte derives his beliefs about the physical world from his religion. He has extended his religious beliefs into the realm of science. This is not about “religious tolerance.” This is about truth.

While I am a conservative Republican, I am also a physicist. Truth must always precede political opinions.

Science shows the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Native Americans were in America over 14,000 years ago. Dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago.

Gianforte thinks dinosaurs coexisted with humans. Gianforte’s view contradicts every area of science. Gianforte’s view of our physical world contradicts what Montana schools should teach.

Questions about Gianforte’s beliefs concerning the measurable physical world are NOT protected by our constitution.

Voters have the right to know why Gianforte rejects data, logic, and the scientific method, and promotes beliefs that contradict science.

Voters must decide if they want a governor who is totally ignorant of science.

10 thoughts on “Voters should question Gianforte’s “religion””

  1. One reader left this message and then unsubscribed:

    "Mr Berry needs to study Gods Word more carefully then do some more scientific study. Read some material from Creation Ministries International just for starters."

    My comment: The unsubscriber's actions tell the truth. Rather than engage, the unsubscriber quit. The unsubscriber cannot stand any information that conflicts with his/her preconceived notions of truth. This is a sure way to never find truth.

    The unsubscriber could not even identify and challenge me on any specific subject in my article.

    Yes, I have read "Creation Ministries International" publications. They are not science. For much better information, read my article here.

  2. Dr. Ed,

    You mentioned that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, yet soft dinosaur tissue has been found in a "68 million year old" T-Rex fossil right here in Montana.

    If dinosaurs are as old as you say, how do you explain blood vessels and other soft tissue surviving so long? This is in indication to me that "Science" did not get it right.

    You are being awful hard on Greg.

  3. Dear Scott, Thank you for the link.

    The article confirms the dinosaur remains were 68 million years ago. The article verifies that soft dinosaur tissue has nothing to do with age. No real scientist concludes that soft tissue implies dinosaurs were here in the last 6000 years.

    Here is a quote from the article:

    "Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

    "This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

    The article shows the "Young-earth creationists" are the problem because they don't understand science.

    I am not being unfairly hard on Greg. He stepped into a frying pan. He deserves it. I stick to facts. Greg believes his interpretation of Bible versus gives a more accurate description of the physical world than direct study of the physical world. No educated person should make that mistake.

    I think Greg has been hard on children's sanity. He tells them to believe pseudo science. I call that child abuse.

  4. Eunice Farmilant

    Actually, I think you are totally discounting or ignoring a lot of recent archaeological work done by 'so-called" alternative archaeologists.

    I am referring to the many years of work and research done by people like Graham Hancock, Michael Creamo (whose outstanding book on Forbidden Archaeology repeatedly points out that if it doesn't fit the current "standard" of Darwinian evolution –it gets tossed out, scientists lose their tenure and generally their jobs as well.

    Klaus Dona, a German museum curator has produced books and his videos are available on U-tube showing many so called out of time relics that indicate modern man may indeed have walked the earth as long as 100 million years ago. No space in this forum to go into detail, but for the curious, a good google will help.

    Also, there are indications from artwork found in South America that dinosaurs may have indeed survived in various parts of the world far past that 65 million year timeline.

    While I certainly don't believe in Gianforte's ridiculous concept of a 6,000 year old earth, I also don't believe that we invented everything in science, astronomy and geography out of the thin air 6,000 years ago either. There is an awful lot that has been covered up by science and swept under the rug. Steve Quayle, a Bozeman based author has done a lot of research on the giants that existed globally –many of their remains having been dug up throughout the US, especially Western states and along the Eastern part of the country. Once they are investigated by mainline scientists they are sent to the Smithsonian and disappear. End of story.

    it's not black and white, but I do think that so called science in this country is quite political, no matter if its the insane concept of CO2 being a deadly greenhouse gas (thanks to getting rid of basic science in grade school people accept this BS) and that humans are responsible for global weather–or that mercury laden vaccines are perfectly harmless and everyone should constantly get vaccines from infancy to old age.

    By the way–is anybody out there at all concerned about the millions of tons of methane spewing out of a well in Porter Ranch

    California which is completely out of control and has the potential to spread into Montana in the near future?

    Methane is at least 25 times worse than CO2, by the way.

  5. Are you then suggesting that we all vote for Gov. Bullock to retain his seat as Governor for a second term? Let me see, you are a Republican and Bullock is a Democrat and Gianforte is a Republican. Science cannot analize a soul… cannot analize a soul either.

    1. Dear Gloria, Are you not aware that Brad Johnson will run against Gianforte in the Republican primary election?

      Are you suggesting the only viable Republican candidate is Gianforte? If so, why?

      And how does your comment relate to my position that voters have the right to ask Gianforte questions about the physical implications of his religion?

      1. I believe your comments are creating more division in the Republican Party. Let the best and most qualified person be elected. Perhaps Gianforte isn't your choice but he is a part of your party of choice…..why destroy his credibility? Why not focus on Bullock and his failures? The Republican party always had high standards and a higher bar of standards and expectations, but now they have taken on to even "eating their young," much as the Democrats. To me this is insanity and self destructive.

        Any of your articles should be focused on defeating the Progressives and their Agendas, not on people or agendas that are on the correct side.

        1. Dear Gloria, You are certainly welcome to your opinions.

          My point, which you have not disputed, is that neither Gianforte nor anyone else has the right to withhold information from the voters on the claim that our constitution protects a candidate's religion when the information requested deals with the real world and not religion.

          Do you understand the difference between partisan and nonpartisan issues? We are talking about how to interpret our constitution. This is a nonpartisan issue.

          My point is nonpartisan. I make my point without judgment of Gianforte's qualification for governor. I write that the voters have a right to information that Gianforte has been withholding. Then the voters can decide.

          What if, for example, a radical Muslim candidate refused to answer questions about his approval of cutting off people's heads or blowing up a subway on claim that these are questions about his religion and therefore protected by our constitution?

          My argument would apply equally to this radical Muslim as it applies to Gianforte. My argument is that cutting off people's heads and blowing up subways are not "religion" even it they derive from a religion.

          The definition of where religion ends and the real world begins, as it applies to our constitution, is the essence of my article. I am surprised you do not get this point. I am making a valid interpretation of our constitution. My article shows why Rep. Daniel Zolnikov's interpetation of our constitution is wrong.

          You, on the other hand, object to my interpretation because you think it applies only to Gianforte. You think we should fudge our interpretation of our constitution when the proper interpretation might conflict with a Republican's chance to win an election.

          You have a right to your opinion on this but I disagree. I believe we must define the rules of the game properly and apply them equally to all candidates.

  6. Rocco Paperiello

    Anyone as IRRATIONAL as to "believe" the earth is 6000 years old is not rational enough to be trusted as governor

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.