Rob Paul planning to teabag Boston?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

How exactly did we bait them, marty? Did we bait them by having a policy that said we wouldn't sit by idly as they plundered all of east asia and the western pacific?

They weren't plundering the western Pacific and East Asia was part of their "sphere of influence".

The Japanese were in search of their own empire. That's not a bad thing, right?
I thought you guys loved empires?

[Cuda]

How exactly did we bait them, marty? Did we bait them by having a policy that said we wouldn't sit by idly as they plundered all of east asia and the western pacific?

They weren't plundering the western Pacific and East Asia was part of their "sphere of influence".

The Japanese were in search of their own empire. That's not a bad thing, right?
I thought you guys loved empires?

The whole "plundering" thingie was largely an invention of Reds in the US State Dept, with the ultimate goal of undermining Chaing in favour of Mao. I doubt they had any idea how well it would eventually work out for them- at least at the outset. FDR was pretty much a clueless buffoon who would go along with anything if it meant he wouldn't have to get intimate with his warthog of a spouse

[BSmack]

The whole "plundering" thingie was largely an invention of Reds in the US State Dept, with the ultimate goal of undermining Chaing in favour of Mao. I doubt they had any idea how well it would eventually work out for them- at least at the outset.

I see the paranoid is strong in this one.

FDR was pretty much a clueless buffoon who would go along with anything if it meant he wouldn't have to get intimate with his warthog of a spouse

I thought polio took care of that problem for him?

[Cuda]

You're hopelessly naive, Monica- on both counts.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Mike, I said you wouldn't post anything showing Macroevolution to be a FACT, and you did not.
You posted EVIDENCES, and tried to pass that off as fact.

That's how it works, pop.

For example, it is a FACT that the Earth revolves around the sun.

It is accepted as a fact because of EVIDENCES (which, I believe are pretty much all mathematical). No one has taken a snapshot or movie of the earth rolling around the sun. The evidence is based upon mathematical & physical calculations.

In science, EVIDENCES are piled up and accepted and help us determine what are FACTS.

I was not being "disingenuous." You, OTOH, are playing the usual creationist game of moving the goalposts and misrepresenting science. A preponderance of analyzed and accepted evidences helps determine facts. Period. Speaking of "facts," the fact remains that no matter how many transitional forms, genetic family trees, etc. we find, irrational people will still desperately cling to their book of fairy tales and insist on using it as some kind of science text.

There is evidence for a LOT of things.
It doesn't mean that those evidences have produced something which we can take as FACT.

That would be news to physicists, mathematicians, biologists, chemists...

But this is off the point that caused this discussion.

Yep.

Paul's point is that the fed gov ought not have an input in what goes on in schools around the various states and school districts.

I agree up to a point. The federal government has no rightful place in setting curriculum, testing, teacher accreditation, etc. That is the business of the individual states.

However, each and every school district, whether overseen by a state or municipality, STILL must follow the laws of the U.S. Constitution, including the prohibition of teaching religious doctrine in a taxpayer-supported school.

If some school districts choose to teach intelligent design, so be it.

Nope. No forms of appeal to supernatural entities can be legally taught as science. The Dover case pretty much settled that nicely.

I don't care if the entire population of the school district wants to teach that the Earth is 5,000 years old, created by a supernatural dude with a beard, and that this same dude made all organisms perfect and unchanging way back then. They can't, because it is illegal. It is, and SHOULD BE, against the law to teach religious doctrine as science. It is illegal to have a state-sponsored religion. It's no different than if the same folks all decided to use tax money to support the same church.

I don't give a hairy rat's ass if a bunch of inbred yokels who are barely two generations from being scared shitless by a solar eclipse find evolution "offensive to their beliefs." It's the 21st frigging century. Those idiots have been declaring the "end times" for almost two thousand years and haven't been right yet. Hell, if we'd listen to the Bible-thumping snake-handlers, we'd still all be living in huts, dying of tons of infectious diseases, genetic ailments, cancers, etc. We keep being told that the Rapture or the Second Coming is "just around the corner." Utter horseshit. Pray all you freaking want - it won't help heat a home, build a factory, cure or treat a disease, or get you across the globe in hours.

Freedom for the people.

TRUE freedom involves arming kids with the scientific, mathematical, and linguistic tools they'll need to be productive members of their families, communities, and country. Dulling their brains with stories of goofy magical tales of arks, giants, angels, devils and telling them that science will hurt their chances of getting to heaven is not "freedom."

You want to stuff that fairy-tale crap in a kid's head? Do it in church, where it belongs. I don't teach science in your church, so keep the frigging fairy tales out of my classroom.

IMNSHO, Ron Paul was pandering to the coverall-wearing hicks in order to get his pathetic poll numbers up.

[Cuda]

If your caps lock is broken, you can look a little more hysterical with the code, Lab Rat

[Mike the Lab Rat]

If your caps lock is broken, you can look a little more hysterical with the code, Lab Rat

Thanks, but I'd be too afraid to use the "bold" bit too much...don't want to get sued for infringement by Diogenes.

Gotta be careful with that stuff. How long will it be before we have to pay royalties to mvscal every time we call someone a "clueless fucktard?"

[poptart]

Nope. No forms of appeal to supernatural entities can be legally taught as science. The Dover case pretty much settled that nicely.

Of course I was speaking of Ron Paul's position, and the way things ought to be.
Education curriculum determined at the LOCAL level.

Is it your take that that fed gov should be in a position to dictate what can or can not be taught in a local school?


Heil Hitler....

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Nope. No forms of appeal to supernatural entities can be legally taught as science. The Dover case pretty much settled that nicely.

Of course I was speaking of Ron Paul's position, and the way things ought to be.
Education curriculum determined at the LOCAL level.

Is it your take that that fed gov should be in a position to dictate what can or can not be taught in a local school?


Heil Hitler....

And Godwin's Law kicks in.

Yeah...telling local rubes that they can't blatantly violate the United States Constitution by siphoning tax dollars to foist their warped religious views in science class is pretty much tantamount to Nazism.

Good one.

[poptart]

I'm sure nobody noticed that you won't answer the question.

[BSmack]

I wouldn't presume to speak for Mike, but the answer I would give you is that any strict constructionist should realize that the teaching of religious doctrine (even if it is not so cleverly disguised as science) is a blatant violation of both the 1st and 14th Amendments.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...the United States Constitution...

Slightly off topic, but...



I laughed.

You all gave up Constitutional protections for the warm, cuddly paternalism of Executive Privilege, remember?

Habeas Corpus flying out the window should have told you that.

[Mister Bushice]

I'm sure nobody noticed that you won't answer the question.

Better get that sarcasm detector of yours fixed, 'Tart. Mike may not have answered your question the way you wanted him too, but he answered it.

[poptart]

Baloney.

Is it your take that that fed gov should be in a position to dictate what can or can not be taught in a local school?

He wouldn't answer that.

We are left to understand that Mike believes the fed gov needs to MANDATE that evolution be taught in all schools.
Or at least mandate that something else NOT be taught.
No freedom to the people.

An unconstitutional position if ever I saw one.

Yes, Heil Hitler, most definitely.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I'm sure nobody noticed that you won't answer the question.

Better get that sarcasm detector of yours fixed, 'Tart. Mike may not have answered your question the way you wanted him too, but he answered it.

No he didn't.

[Mister Bushice]

Baloney.

Is it your take that that fed gov should be in a position to dictate what can or can not be taught in a local school?

He wouldn't answer that.

We are left to understand that Mike believes the fed gov needs to MANDATE that evolution be taught in all schools.
Or at least mandate that something else NOT be taught.
No freedom to the people.

An unconstitutional position if ever I saw one.

Yes, Heil Hitler, most definitely.

What part of:

The federal government has no rightful place in setting curriculum, testing, teacher accreditation, etc. That is the business of the individual states.

However, each and every school district, whether overseen by a state or municipality, STILL must follow the laws of the U.S. Constitution, including the prohibition of teaching religious doctrine in a taxpayer-supported school.

and

Can't blatantly violate the United States Constitution by siphoning tax dollars to foist their warped religious views in science class

Doesn't answer the question?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Only someone blinded by their own holy-roller views or generally dimwitted couldn't see that I did answer the question, quite explicity.

The feds shouldn't be micromanaging specific curriculum, how students should be tested (types of tests or frequency), how teachers get accredited, if or how tenure is granted, etc.

It is entirely the place of the federal courts to ensure that government entities, especially taxpayer-supported ones, not promote or endorse a specific religious denomination or doctrine. And please save any half-assed arguments that natural selection/evolution is a "religion" - absolutely no one, from the courts down to even the disingenuous hacks trying to push that crap, has ever bought that.

Your painting of the courts correct rulings as Nazism is hysterical. I wasn't aware that federal courts protecting us from the indoctrination of religious fundamentalists in publicly-funded schools - an indoctrination which infringes upon the rights of others - was equivalent to Hitler and Nazism.

Anyone honestly trying to equate federal protection of the secular nature of our government with ghettos, hate-filled rhetoric involving notions of racial superiority, mass exterminations, etc. needs to seriously have their sanity and/or education checked.

Just because we won't let thumpers teach their fairy-tale stories to students in public schools doesn't mean we won't let you warp their little minds in churches and in your homes.
Go ahead, knock yourselves out and speak in tongues, read chicken entrails, make dire predictions of dragons popping out of the seas...but do it OUTSIDE of taxpayer-funded schools. No one is rounding up thumpers and executing them.

Jefferson et al. had a darned good reason to be suspicious of letting holy-rollers sully the government process with their primitive and prejudiced beliefs.

[Mister Bushice]

Hey Poptart,

Answer me this. Do you think religion should be taught in Schools?

[poptart]

Cuda definitely nailed it with the HYSTERICAL comments.
Might as well slap a [LTS TARD][/LTS TARD] around Mike's posts.

It is entirely the place of the federal courts to ensure that government entities, especially taxpayer-supported ones, not promote or endorse a specific religious denomination or doctrine.

Of course if you play switcheroo with the words of the Constitution you can make it say whatever you want it to say.
Which is which agenda-driven judges have been doing with it regarding the ESTABLISHMENT clause.

The Constitution does not say squat about 'promoting' or 'endorsing' a religion or religious 'doctrine' ... does it?

No law may be passed which establishes a religion.
Kids learning about ID in no way establishes any religion.
No way, no how.
Only someone with an intellect on par with a newt would think it does.
Either that, or one who has an agenda of his own to push.


It's a very vague question, Bushice.
But as you state it, yes, why not?
No religion is established by it.

You're well aware that through much of our nations history, 'religion' was openly taught.
Yeah, they had it all wrong back then, I know.

How wonderful it is that after ALL those years, the modern American finally figured out how to 'interpret' the intent of the founders.

lol lol x a whole lot

[Mister Bushice]

It's a very vague question, Bushice.
But as you state it, yes, why not?
No religion is established by it.

You're well aware that through much of our nations history, 'religion' was openly taught.
Yeah, they had it all wrong back then, I know.

How wonderful it is that after ALL those years, the modern American finally figured out how to 'interpret' the intent of the founders.

lol lol x a whole lot

Ok then, how would you like to schedule it?

Christianity on Monday, instead of PE
Hinduism on Tuesday, instead of English
Buddhism on Wednesday. Shorten the lunch break
Islam on Thursday, skip Math
Friday can be religious Lottery day. All the other nut job religions out there can submit a business card, and hope they are picked. One entry per month only, please.

Will that schedule work out alright for ya?

[poptart]

The curriculum is decided upon by the local district.
The people, under the Constitution, are to have FREEDOM to educate their children in a manner decided upon by THEM, not the fed gov.
The government is merely there to protect the people.

If there is a largely muslim community, and the district (the PEOPLE) have decided that they wish to educate their kids and use the koran as a 'guide' for the education process, more power to 'em.
I'm not a bigot.
They can talk about the koran, respect the koran, reference the koran.
Nothing that is happening there is establishing Islam as a relgion.

And if a parent in the district does not like the education situation he has two choices.

1. leave
2. grow a pair of balls

[Mister Bushice]

HOLY CRAP That is such a load of rose colored viewpoint you've got there.

About 10 years ago my neighbors were sending their kids to this private school that was associated with their church, but the bylaws of the school were established from day #1 to educate the kids according to state mandated guidelines, to surpass those guidelines, and thus give their kids a leg up in the real world. Religion was to have NO part of daily curriculum. They all belonged to the church anyway, went to Sunday services and prayer meetings, gatherings etc. Plenty of time to warp young minds there.

Well over the years the School gained such a good reputation and was able to generate so much money for the church that they opened it up to outsiders (for a much higher tuition rate if they weren't church members), but with the concept that religion was NOT on the curriculum, and would never be.

Of course there was a school board, and one year a bunch of the church holy rollers dominated the board, and frenetically and with fervor passed a motion to allow the church activities to be publicized on school grounds, including an informal monthly "meet and greet" with a church elder.

Well,

By that point about 30% of the school attendees were not of the denomination, they just valued the education their kids could get and were willing to pay for it.

SO,

One of these non church members threatened to sue the school board, insisting that if the church was allowed to disseminate propaganda on campus, then his church, which was a completely different religion, should also be allowed equal time.

So they took Muhammads lawsuit threat under consideration.

Then two more lawsuit threats arrived from Siddhartha, and Mahatma.

About 1 day later the board reconvened, revoted, and magically, all religious activities on campus were, once again, banned.

Subsequently all parties dropped their lawsuit threats.

Because you see, Pop, ultimately they were all more concerned with their children getting properly educated in the things that would most help them get ahead and succeed in the world,

Because their own churches were all individually real good at teaching their own dogma.

They weren't so good at teaching calculus II, though.

[poptart]

It's an interesting story.

You understand of course, Bushice, that such a clusterfuck would've never occured had the courts of this country not started down the road of fuggin' up the clear wording and intent of the Constitution regarding establishment of religion.

Because judges began making these grossly incorrect rulings, now no matter which way a judge rules on a church/state issue now, he is fuggin' things up more.
No win situation at this point.

Church activities publicized on school grounds, meeting with an elder, etc ...... do NOT establish a religion.

[Mister Bushice]

You are missing the point. Completely.

There are not twelve different math, science, geography, English, and history sects, all vying to be the "The one version" to be taught in schools. There is only a slight difference in the method of teaching each of those individual concepts, but the subject matter, the content is the same.

2 plus 2 always equals 4, and not sometimes Jesus, and sometimes Mohammad.

There are a dozen and MORE religious sects, all of which want THEIR version of God taught.

Perhaps you are blinded by the same light every other believer is in their own god, feeling yours is the only true version? Hmmm?

You simplify the problem of local teachings by saying "Oh, this area is mostly mostly muslim, so majority rules.

"Ok, Rabbi Steinberg, your son must learn Islam in school, because your parents did not fuck enough to generate enough voters to win in this area. Salaam and praise Allah."

:?

Did it ever once occur to you that perhaps the founding fathers designed the Constitution to separate church and state because they saw a country founded by as many different religious sects as there were boats to fill, to escape religious persecution in Europe, and that they were correct in doing so?

Think of it - Quakers, Puritans, Shakers, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Methodists, Baptists, Calvinists, Mennonites, Amish etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum - and all with their own religious agendas.

Are you catching on yet?

Do you realize what this country would be like if our founding fathers had let religion be THE single most influential and dominant driving force in our schools, in our government, in every aspect of our lives at the expense of everything else?

NO?

Here's a visual clue:




You can't just say "MY RELIGION IS THE ONE, SO YOU MUST TEACH IT TO ALL"

That worked when everyone within buggy riding distance believed that.

But now there are too many people believing in too many different things who live all together in one place, who happen to send all their kids to one place to be educated, to make majority decisions like that on something as sensitive and personal as Religious beliefs.

Pull your head out of the 18th century, and look around. No one is saying that you can't teach religion, just don't fuck up the teaching curriculum that works for everyone regardless of race or creed by injecting only your version of what god wants into it.

[poptart]

Believe me, Bushice, I understand your point.
What you are trying to do, however, is alter the Constitution to fit the times.
And THAT is bassackwards.
It's just that type of thinking which has fucked our country so very badly.

The Constitution is old, so we'll not follow it.
Huh??

That course of action is exactly why we're no longer the nation we once were, guy.

You simplify the problem of local teachings by saying "Oh, this area is mostly mostly muslim, so majority rules.

This just in -- Our system of governing is one in which majority rules, Bushice.
The people vote for school board members.
The school board members who were voted in by the MAJORITY set up the curriculum.
Hence, I said that a person has two choices if he doesn't like the rules somewhere.
Move out or grow balls.

Or, as you said, fuck more. haha

The curriculum set up may not ESTABLISH A RELIGION, but beyond that it can be set up to the liking of the folks voted in by the majority to set it up.

Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet.
God bless America!

Why do you hate democracy?

Did it ever once occur to you that perhaps the founding fathers designed the Constitution to separate church and state ....

They didn't design the Constitution to make a separation of church and state.
It's not IN the Constitution.

Read the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

There is nothing in there which makes a separation of state and religion, only the understanding that no law can be made which serves to establish a NATIONAL RELIGION.

Now everyone goes ape shit whenever anything CLOSE to even smelling like the dreaded ... religion ...... enters a school, and this is just so absurd that it defies description.

[Terry in Crapchester]

During the Values Voter Debate in September, Tom DeRosa, president of the hardcore anti-evolution Creation Studies Institute asked the candidates: "Will your office support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), and Huckabee all answered yes. A reasonable interpretation is that they favored allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. The debate was not attended by McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Thompson.

In a South Carolina forum, Paul was asked about his views on evolution, to which he replied, "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." He also said that he thought it was an inappropriate question to be asking presidential candidates.

Does it matter what presidential candidates believe about biological evolution? After all, they are running for commander-in-chief, not scientist-in-chief.

. . .

A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to evaluate evidence. A January 4, 2008, editorial by Science editor Donald Kennedy correctly argues, "The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of climate change?" Kennedy concludes, "I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership."

What I believe Ron is saying here, is 'who gives a fukk what the president thinks about evolution or creation.

If that's the case, I couldn't possibly disagree more. Even if one accepts the proposition that the federal government has no business in determining whether creationism or "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools (a questionable position at best, given the current state of the law as well as the Establishment Clause), he's a private citizen in addition to a candidate for President. Certainly he's allowed to have a position on the topic. And whether a person accepts evolution tells about certain qualities of that person. Just off the top of my head, those include his ability to evaluate and analyze data, his intelligence and intellectual curiosity, and perhaps, how willing he is to change his mind about certain matters when presented with evidence that contradicts an earlier assessment. In light of where we've been the last seven years, those qualities are absolutely essential in the next President. Imho, it's a far more relevant question than whether you've ever had an extramarital affair, or whether you smoked pot when you were a teenager. And certainly, it's a far more relevant question than "boxers or briefs," or in Hillary's case, "diamonds or pearls."

[BSmack]

How about this for a creation theory?

The world was shit out of my ass.

There, I said it. That makes it on par with ID. I DEMAND that the World Was Shit Out Of My Ass Theory be taught next to ID in our schools. After all, it is just a "theory".

Right 'tart?



Or maybe, just maybe, the scientific definition of "theory" is a whole lot more complex and nuanced than you've been willing to admit?

[Goober McTuber]

How about this for a creation theory?

The world was shit out of my ass.

There, I said it. That makes it on par with ID. I DEMAND that the World Was Shit Out Of My Ass Theory be taught next to ID in our schools. After all, it is just a "theory".

In theory, you have a really fat ass.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

In theory, you have a really fat ass.

No theory there, Goobs. Only established fact.

[BSmack]

In theory, you have a really fat ass.

No, that would be your wife. Who also likes the black cack. We call it the Fresno Theory of Weight Displacement and demand that it be taught in our schools.

[Dinsdale]

Church activities publicized on school grounds, meeting with an elder, etc ...... do NOT establish a religion.

School grounds are paid for by taxpayers.

You're now funding the publicizing/meetings with taxpayer money.


Newsflash, bud -- they scrapped the original Massachusetts constitution for this very reason -- because it was in contrast to the US Constitution.


Not sure where you're struggling with the "wall of separation"?


You made some solid points in this thread, then you had to go and trash that with a complete unfamiliarity with history, writings of Jefferson and Madison, and decrying the Constitution, with the usual thumper-technique of "that's not what the Constitution says."

Why is it that every time I hear a thumper try and "interpret" the Constitution, they tell outright lies?


Three words, Pop -- "wall" "of" "separation"


Learn them. Know them. Live them.


Or prepare to meet the gallows when The Day comes.

[Dinsdale]

BTW -- as far as Paul's statements...

That shit is taken out of context-btw.


While Paul is quite the bible-thumper, he's also Captain Constitution, remember?


He is quite adamantly opposed to federal interference in education. He's also a devout believer in the Wall of Separation.


I'm confident his statements about teaching the "alternate theories" in schools stems from the fact he believes all schools should be private, and parents should be able to spend their money on whichever education they see fit for their child.


I'd bet the rent this was the "context" of the statements, since he's made them many times in the past. This time, someone just decided to take a snippet out of context to make Dr. Paul look bad.

[Dinsdale]

Exactly what public money is being spent by letting someone tack up a Bible study flyer on a school bulletin board?

Was the bulletin board free?

Is the maintenence of the grounds on which the bulletin board sits free?

Nice opportunism by the Traitors, though -- "Well, since it's already paid for, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to use it to promote our view of things."


Should Islamic nutjobs be allowed to display their fliers on the same school grounds?

How about Seventh Day Adventists?


How about we just maintain the "Wall of Separation" that the Founders specified, and call it a wash?

[Dinsdale]

I'm all about Freedom of Religion... obviously.

I just find it both funny and sad that thumpers want to exercise one BoR Right, while trashing that of others.


I'm still not sure which part of "Wall of Separation" anyone is struggling with?


Until the government gets out of the education business, what happens on school grounds happens on my dime. In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that my INALIENABLE RIGHTS be respected.


On a similar note -- anyone who endorsed/continues to endorse "faith based initiatives" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There was absolutely no question about the constitutionality of that travesty, yet the BoR was once again trashed for the gain of a few.


But just sit back and take it, little sheeple.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Cuda definitely nailed it with the HYSTERICAL comments.
Might as well slap a [LTS TARD][/LTS TARD] around Mike's posts.

Hysterical? Apparently you and cuda take the same LSD, since you have the same penchant for gross exaggeration. I'm guessing you'd refer to a spilled cup of coffee as a "disaster of Biblical proportions."

No...wait...that would mean it never actually happened.

Of course if you play switcheroo with the words of the Constitution you can make it say whatever you want it to say.
Which is which agenda-driven judges have been doing with it regarding the ESTABLISHMENT clause.

Oh...all the federal judges up to and including the Supreme Court that have ruled for keeping thumper fairy tales out of schools are wrong, while the folks who believe that the Earth was popped into existence 5,000 years ago by an invisible dude and populated with all the critters at that time (with some being saved from a global flood by a really bigass boat) are right.

Sure, sport. That makes a ton of sense.

No law may be passed which establishes a religion.
Kids learning about ID in no way establishes any religion.

It sure as hell does.

The "unintelligent designers" of ID are fundamentalist freaks with a Christian agenda. The "daddy of ID" is William Dembski, who has made the strategy of ID clear - to bring GAWD back into our society. Intelligent design theory was cooked up by him and a few other freaks as a way of dressing up creationist horseshit in pseudoscientific terms and seeing if courts would be stupid enough to let it slide.

I'm not just making this shit up. The "Wedge Document", which was authored by the Discovery Institute states:

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

And what are the goals of the Discovery Institute's "Wedge Strategy?"

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Toss in the fact that during the Dover trial, subpoenaed drafts of the "intelligent design textbook" endorsed strongly by the Discovery Institute, "Of Pandas and People" showed incontrovertibly that the "ID text" was a creationist text in which "God/creator" was "find/replaces" with "intelligent designer."

The Dover trial helped show clearly that ID's creators and supporters have a wholly (holy?) religious purpose and were trying to get one past the judges.

No way, no how.
Only someone with an intellect on par with a newt would think it does.

Only a person completely blinded by their religious fervor or a complete dimwit would think otherwise, especially after Dover.

By the way...the judge that decided the case against the ID folks happens to be a conservative Christian, recommended by Santorum and appointed by Dubya. He decided the case by its legal merits.

Oh, and I'm guessing that he's smarter than a newt.

You're well aware that through much of our nations history, 'religion' was openly taught.
Yeah, they had it all wrong back then, I know.

Thay also had slavery.
And denied women the vote.
They allowed booze, outlawed it, then legalized it again.

No matter how badly you thumpers want to push your fairy tales down our throats, the fact remains that you do not have a 'right" to do so, especially not on the taxpayer's dime. Contrary to your whining (e.g., references to Nazism ), refusing to give thumpers a bully pulpit in classes does not constitute persecution of any kind. Thumpers are just pissed that the "good ole days" when they could force their views down everyone else's throats (Blue Laws, consensual sodomy laws, "sin taxes," prayer in schools) are over. Deal with it.

[titlover]

I'm all about Freedom of Religion... obviously.

I just find it both funny and sad that thumpers want to exercise one BoR Right, while trashing that of others.


I'm still not sure which part of "Wall of Separation" anyone is struggling with?


Until the government gets out of the education business, what happens on school grounds happens on my dime. In light of that, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that my INALIENABLE RIGHTS be respected.


On a similar note -- anyone who endorsed/continues to endorse "faith based initiatives" should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There was absolutely no question about the constitutionality of that travesty, yet the BoR was once again trashed for the gain of a few.


But just sit back and take it, little sheeple.

how ironic that this phrase 'wall of seperation' was uttered by Jefferson when trying to explain to a pastor friend of his that there would be a protective wall protecting religion from gubment interference.

but continue to bastardize it to suit your needs.

[poptart]

The world was shit out of my ass.

There, I said it. That makes it on par with ID. I DEMAND that the World Was Shit Out Of My Ass Theory be taught next to ID in our schools. After all, it is just a "theory".

Right 'tart?

Yes, of course.
If the representatives of the PEOPLE (school board members) of a given district choose to educate their children that way, the fed gov ought to have NO say in the matter.

Why do you hate freedom?


RACK mvscal in this thread.
What he gets is that the founders set up a system where we had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Bible study flyers must be torn down from a school bulletin board?? bwaaa ....

Absolutely incredible.

[Terry in Crapchester]

we had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

As I've said before, this is a distinction without a difference. You can't have freedom OF religion unless you also have freedom FROM religion.

[Mister Bushice]

now you're getting twisty.

Not a bad idea though. Might happen if some muslim nutter bombs something here in the US

[Dinsdale]

What he gets is that the founders set up a system where we had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

I guess poptart missed that memo from Thomas Jefferson.

Sin,
Patrick Henry, dude who lost that battle, BIGTIME



Uhm, pop -- freedom FROM religion was already in place BEFORE the Constitution was ratified, and was a basic tenet of the First Amendment. So sorry you had to find out this way. The precedent was set before there even was a Supreme Court... but hey, don't let FACTS get in the way of a good thumping-session.