Thoughts on Palin?

[groovatron]

Again, you support the idea of teaching only one side of any given topic. The first tenant of a progressive agenda is to replace God with government. I don't care if your God is Allah, Buddha, Lilith, Mother Azra, or Ryan Seacrest; the idea of teaching only one side of any debate while discrediting all other opinions and claiming only one side to be "fact", and approved for teaching the masses, is lunacy. Thus, the establishment of this great republic required both the Federalist Papers AND the Anti-Federalist Papers.

The reason for such a debate was because the founding fathers were escaping the single minded governance of the kingdom. If memory serves me right, even the king established the beliefs for the Church of England, so as to support his kingdom.

Thinking that creationsim and evolution are two sides of a debate is ridiculous. Keep the religion in your church, your home, your pocket, your car, your yard, your conservation club....whatever....that's fine with me. If you are so concerned, then send your kid to a private school that teaches whatever you believe. But saying that it should be taught in a public school forum that is overseen by the government is plain wrong.

 

[groovatron]

What interpretation? The words simply are not there. They are nowhere to be found. How do you "interpret" words that are not there?

oh...you got me. The constitution's text is not open to interpretation.

Once again......:wtf:

 

[Joe Williams]

There you go with the Humanist crap again. Get off it buddy. Is there anything you can't attach a label to? It is your entire bag of tricks.

So, does that mean you CAN'T prove the guess being taught as fact in our schools today?

Why, then, do you laugh when I say your preferred guess is less likely than mine?

 

[groovatron]

a niche opinion...hmmm

yep....a niche opinion
the niche would be christians who choose to adopt the belief of creationism...........and because it's not a fact, then that makes it an opinion


One day you will be asked point blank, "Where do your rights come from?" and you will have no answer. That is, none that can't be overruled by The State. Without The Creator, there is only The State.

I got nothing for that

 

[groovatron]

So, does that mean you CAN'T prove the guess being taught as fact in our schools today?

Why, then, do you laugh when I say your preferred guess is less likely than mine?

What guess? Are you referring to the big bang theory? When is this taught as fact? Show me please. It is, however, a scientifically accepted theory. Creationism is not.

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

Thinking that creationsim and evolution are two sides of a debate is ridiculous. Keep the religion in your church, your home, your pocket, your car, your yard, your conservation club....whatever....that's fine with me. If you are so concerned, then send your kid to a private school that teaches whatever you believe. But saying that it should be taught in a public school forum that is overseen by the government is plain wrong.

Why is it wrong? Because it can't be taught in science class, does that make it wrong? Or is it wrong because the word "faith" must be used when discussing any religion?

We're often quick to criticize national politicians on their foreign policy stance and understanding. Wouldn't it only make sense to introduce faiths/beliefs/religions of the world when trying to explain how the human being came upon the earth? Let alone, where did the earth come from?

Using your theory, we shouldn't be teaching capitalist economics or the history of communism in schools then either. Since these are topics based upon personal beliefs, they should be left to the individual to be taught on a private level, and not that of an overall understanding and explanation in a tax payer funded public forum.

 

[Joe Williams]

What guess? Are you referring to the big bang theory? When is this taught as fact? Show me please. It is, however, a scientifically accepted theory. Creationism is not.

"Scientifically accepted" merely means it's a guess, and NOT fact. But that is not how it is taught in schools, now, is it? Otherwise, why not allow other equally likely scenarios to be taught?

 

[MTC]

I got nothing for that

Nothing for what? You got nothing (worthwhile) out of the quote, or you got no answer?

 

[flagtag]

Read my posts. I never said that a political figure couldn't refer to his/her religion. I swear, some of you folks don't take the time to actually read what people are saying. You just "hear" what you want to "hear" and go on the defensive. So I have a different opinion......deal with it. It's not like your narrow view doesn't get enough support on this board.

Per your post # 144:

"Stuff like this is enough of a turn off too me. I suppose if you support a religious political cocktail, then she may be a great fit for you. I personally believe in the ACTUAL seperation of church and state.....Hmmmm.....I think that's also in the Constitution. I guess that interpretation of the 1st ammendment isn't convenient enough for some of you so-called "constitutionalists."..............:nuts :"

"I personally believe in the ACTUAL seperation of church and state" - where did she dictate her religious beliefs in any government setting/office? There was nothing in what you "quoted" her in any way connected to government, but you "suggested" that she shouldn't be allowed to discuss religion because of her "government" connection?

 

[JBusch8899]

.

 

[groovatron]

Why is it wrong? Because it can't be taught in science class, does that make it wrong? Or is it wrong because the word "faith" must be used when discussing any religion?

We're often quick to criticize national politicians on their foreign policy stance and understanding. Wouldn't it only make sense to introduce faiths/beliefs/religions of the world when trying to explain how the human being came upon the earth? Let alone, where did the earth come from?

Using your theory, we shouldn't be teaching capitalist economics or the history of communism in schools then either. Since these are topics based upon personal beliefs, they should be left to the individual to be taught on a private level, and not that of an overall understanding and explanation in a tax payer funded public forum.

Once again.....you are putting words into my mouth. I am fine with religious studies classes. I just don't think creationism should be paired with science class. They are two entirely different things.

 

[groovatron]

Nothing for what? You got nothing (worthwhile) out of the quote, or you got no answer?

I didn't have a response for the second part of your post.

 

[Joe Williams]

The courts have consistently applied interpretations to a lack of words. There is insurmountable evidence to this effect.

They also said slaves weren't citizens, and that slavery couldn't be outlawed. Are we really to assume that just because courts create law when they aren't supposed to, that the act makes it right?

 

[groovatron]

"Scientifically accepted" merely means it's a guess, and NOT fact. But that is not how it is taught in schools, now, is it? Otherwise, why not allow other equally likely scenarios to be taught?

Please Joe......READ! It is a theory, not a fact. I never said it is a fact. Scientific theory should be taught in science class. Creationism should be left to religious studies class. Plain and simple. To lump them together is foolish.

Show me proof that the big bang theory is taught as fact. It wasn't when I went to school.

I'm all about equally likely scenarios.....if they relate to the subject. Like teaching the theory of a bubble universe or a protouniverse as universal origin......IN A SCIENCE CLASS.

 

[XDinmyXJ]

What's a "political whack job"?

Sarah Palin!

 

[irishfan]

Simple solutions to complex problems is often times the best approach. Although she may not have the experience that many would like to see, she seems to have the moral compass that is dearly needed today. If experience were a requirement, we would not have the President that we currently have. I will gladly vote for her if she runs, on a two party ticket, if she runs on a third party ticket, we are in for another four years of "Hope". She seems to be the closest thing to Reagan I have seen, and that is a huge asset in my book. If we want "change we can believe in", vote for "someone we can believe in for a change".

Reagan? Really? I thought most people on here didn't like a person for president who supports STRONG gun control and HUGE government spending. Isn't that two major policy issues that people on here have with Obama?

 

[IrishSon of Liberty]

Keep the religion in your church, your home, your pocket, your car, your yard, your conservation club....whatever....that's fine with me. If you are so concerned, then send your kid to a private school that teaches whatever you believe. But saying that it should be taught in a public school forum that is overseen by the government is plain wrong.

So where did I put words in your mouth? You plainly state, right here, that you don't support teaching of religions in a public school.

As for the "religious studies" courses that you mention, those are typically elective type classes, and thus, not taught to the entire student body. However, you want evolution taught to everyone, and only those that may seek an alternative explanation to this theory can seek it out on their own free will. Is that about right?

 

[flagtag]

Reagan? Really? I thought most people on here didn't like a person for president who supports STRONG gun control and HUGE government spending. Isn't that two major policy issues that people on here have with Obama?

Not me. I don't like Obama because he is a "Chicago Politician" and is SO against the Constitution! (And indirectly, the U.S.of A.) (Not just some parts of it) He is an "Elitest" and acts as everyone should treat him like he is our "savior". Those are just a few things that I don't like him.

 

[irishfan]

Not me. I don't like Obama because he is a "Chicago Politician" and is SO against the Constitution! (And indirectly, the U.S.of A.) (Not just some parts of it) He is an "Elitest" and acts as everyone should treat him like he is our "savior". Those are just a few things that I don't like him.

I don't agree with a lot of the things that Obama does or his policies but I get tired of seeing people using Reagan as the champion conservative who was so great to America. If you like Palin then that is great for you and if you like Obama then great for you as well because that is the purpose of our freedom to choose who we want to represent us.

 

[MTC]

I didn't have a response for the second part of your post.

That was the most important part, with the quote as background bedrock principle.
Maybe we can talk of such things in a separate thread, since expounding on it may cause thread drift, but it is relevant to a few things you brought up and may be useful to you.