They just skipped over it in my son's Catholic School. The didn't cover any any of Darwin's findings, they didn't cover anything about the evolution of man, or any work relating to hominid man.
They covered the creationism in religion, and made it a point to say this was the Church's position.
I told my son not to argue because each kid is invited back each year at the school's discretion and unless he wanted to learn about survival of the fittest at West Warwick Junior High, just to let it slide on by. If carbon dating has not made then re-think their position, a 12-year old certainly is not going to change it.
There was still plenty of other science stuff to study.

Science is only fact when it does not contradict what the good book says, and if can be accepted without opening the wallet.

Again, it is a misinterpretation of what theory means. A theory has to be testable. The theories of the origin of life include primordial soup, deep sea vents, panspermia, etc. Creationism is religious doctrine, not theory. You would be right to say some people have other ideas about the origin of life, but in the case of creationism, it isn't a theory. Any science course on origins of life will discuss multiple theories (theology based private education apparently excluded :). Scientific theories are different than discussing religious doctrine. When one asks for teaching of religion in a public school science class, it is nothing other than religious indoctrination.

Isn't this EXACTLY one of the problems "created" when the Federal Government ignores the Constitution and rules over us as an over-reaching central power that passes laws to rule us when there is no constitutional power granted to it by us to do so. The Constitution, as written and intended leaves education to the States, and gives no power to the Federal Government to dictate how we are educated. If we accept that the Consitution is no longer relevant, and that the Federal Government actually has, and must have, the power to do as it wishes because that is the most efficient, progressive, scientific way to assure our good, then we are left to the whim of a few who may even change that whim with changing administrations.

the fact that you are the only creature of the millions on this earth capable of pondering these questions and perhaps the only creature in all that we see out there beyond that has "evolved" beyond
eating and crapping ....should tell you that it is certainly a valid scientific discussion

the climate change discussion should tell you that science and scientists are not only quite fallible but highly imperfect human beings subject to the same whims, biases and dishonesty motivated by agenda as anyone else :chased:

yup......

You do understand that the states do not have to follow most federal mandates in education, so long as they reject federal funding? Isn't the onus on the states to make the decision, which in turn "leaves education to the states?" Bush 2 and Nixon oversaw two of the biggest federal initiatives in public education.

Precisely. There's also no Constitutional requirement for the feds to provide educational funding to the states. The feds hold educational funding out as a carrot to force states to adhere to federal guidelines.

It's just like the BS Section 8 housing requirement in Mass. Towns aren't required to have a certain percentage of low-income housing. It's just that if towns decide to ignore the state guidelines, the towns lose some of their state funding.

I do understand that, Constitutionally, the Federal Government has no business imposing mandates on the States per education. It doesn't even have the option to entice the States with the promise of money if it will follow those illegal mandates. As JohnnyD has pointed out, the federales are not constitutionally empowered to tax the people of a State for purposes of imposing educational mandates. The Federal power to tax is for the purpose of doing legitimate Federal Government business, not to interfere with the States doing their business. As JohnnyD points out, this is a scam. And the States, starving for money and in order to recoup some that legitimately belonged to them in the first place, join the unconstitutional scam, and can excuse itself to its people by saying it's just complying with Federal mandates. State politicians can act just as unconstitutionally as their federal henchmen. "Leaving it to the States" would mean that people would have to approve by vote, or by voicing and initiatve. And in this day and age, the people of most States might well agree with your position on the teaching of creationism. Perhaps, in some States, they might also wish to have creationism taught as well as evolution or whatever scientific theories may come to exist.

And you do understand that all this makes your initial statement that Santorum's ammendment attempt "is imposing his religious beliefs through government force" a straw man argument since you are now saying that the government can't force educational mandates on States?

And do you understand that when I speak of the Federal Government, that includes ALL Presidents including Bush2/Nixon, and all Republicans as well as Democrats who are part of that Federal Government? As I have been saying in these threads, BOTH parties are guilty of shifting power from the States to the central government, trashing the Constitution, and advancing the administrative State at the expense of the constitutionally representative republic. Please view the YouTube video I posted in the other Santorum thread to understand what I'm talking about.

The only reason I lean toward Republican candidates at this time is becuase, of the two major parties, it is only in the Republican that there are some movements and congressmen who have the same concerns as I do of returning toward constitutional governance. I truly regret that such sentiments seem to have left the Democrat party.

yes, those would be the radical, right wing extremists that we hear so much about...

some of you should reacquaint yourselves with the various definitions of "religion" and then revisit the establishment clause...the founders we pretty smart :uhuh:

WOW..."they should be lined up and summarily shot"..right?:uhuh:

I suppose if you want your kid taught darwinism and evolution you should teach it at home or send him to public school or perhaps a secularism class like someone else suggested but in reverse....yes?

For sure, Thomas Jefferson for one. The first President to attend Harvard, known for having the largest library of the times, knowing the works of "The Thinkers", Aristotle , Cicero, Alegron Sidney, against Monarchy , John Locke, the father of Liberalism, and including Deuteronemy, the book of laws.
They were the right men at the right time.
In mho, no one close to hold a candle to any of them now, or on the horizon.

Absolutely!

My state takes federal money. He was imposing his religious beliefs in education law. Maybe if the amendment was passed the state would have rejected federal funding, I don't know. No where else in modern public education has the teaching of a religious belief been so close to becoming part of federal law. Theocracy, whether Santorum law or Sharia law or Vishnu law is scary. Sounds like we are both opposed to it since you have clearly stated you oppose any federal involvement in education. Education would only be the start; there should be no federal drug laws, subsidies for business/agriculture or energy, no earmarks (Santorum loves them), etc. Basically, you would prefer the government of 1810.

Education has already been the start of Federal Gvt encroachment on State and individual rights--just as all the other things you mention have been. They have all been part of the progressive creation of, what you seem OK with, the administrative, regulatory, centralized, all-powerful State. And earmarks are the method that Congress can deal with this State. They are the method by which representatives can show their consitutuents that they are actually doing something. The States have now become lobbyists to the Federal Gvt. I was surprised to learn that lobbying the Federal Gvt has only become as massively entrenched and widespread as it is since the 1960's. It took time for the central gvt. to become so powerful, and it has become so powerful that it has become the mecca for handouts, subsidies, and regulations that favor powerful lobbies. I take it you prefer that to whatever you think the government of 1810 is. I prefer the protection of individual liberty that the original Constitution with its separation of powers, limited government, and emphasis on self-government, confers--at any date and time.

He concluded that approx 6,000 years ago, dinosaurs and people did not both walk the earth at the same time because the evidence points to it as an impossibility - probably from watching that unholy Discovery Channel.
I found that while holding my hands above my head, closing my eyes, and swaying back and forth while saying, "Praise him!" That I couldn't hear or see a goddamn thing.

Yes, after it takes it from us it gives it back to the states as it sees fit.

Gasoline for instance has a Federal tax of 18 and 1/2 cents/gal which it
takes from each of us. Then they spend 15% of it on public transportation
and return the rest to the States, again, as they see fit as each State
fights to get it's share back for their own roads.

Who knows best as to where the money is needed, some Fed Bureacracy
or the State Transportation Agency ?
Doesn't make sense, the state should tax gasoline for it's own needs and
skip the extra costs of a Fed system that takes and returns.

All about returning favors and power.

Ok, so we should have an interstate highway system with giant gaps and delapidated bridges because some states don't have the wealth or where with all to take care of their roads?

The gas tax is outdated anyway. They don't adjust it for inflation so the trust is running out of funds. Envision a pay as you go system where you're taxed on miles driven...it's comming sooner than later.

-spence

wow, this sure got out of whack!

Debtuch - I heard santorum answer a few off the cuff questions and his response was deeply troubling to me. IMHO, it showed his character.
Like I beat my liberal friends over and over on 4 years ago - i cant see how anyone could have voted for Obama after hearing the Rev Wright rants. O never said those things, but its a character flaw that he didnt get up and walk out. For Santorum, his character flaw is that he believes in religious superiority, that religion makes you better. I disagree strongly with that. All religions have a superiority complex built into them.

You missed the point a bit. Santorum isn't choosing to focus on birth control, he wants to talk about the economy. However, the MEDIA are focused on his opinions on birth control, because they are trying to paint him as a fanatic. The last thing the media wants is for folks to hear what Santorum has to say about fixing the economy, because anyone with half a brain knows that conservative economic principles are the only thing that can save us from following Europe's lead down the economic toilet.

I probably wouldn't vote for Santorum in the primary, but if he wins the primary, I'll sure as hell vote for him in the general.

As John R hinted at, a whole lot of problems in our society can be traced back to the breakdown of the nuclear family. Obama knows this, but refuses to talk about it, because like other liberals, Obama doesn't want to tell anyone that anything is their fault. It's easy to tell people what they want to hear.

RIJIMMY, every study ever done, clearly shows that people of faith consider themselves to be happier than atheists. We are much more likely to describe our lives as full and rich, than athiests. Our kids are more likely to succeed than kids of athiests. We give WAY more time and money to charity than atheists. We get divorced far less often than athiests, we commit way less crime than athiests.

Am I saying that all athiests are bad? Nope. Am I saying that all religious people are good? Nope. I'm saying that, on average, having faith adds a whole lot of positive things to one's life that are difficult (though not impossible) to acquire otherwise. That's what Santorum is saying. And it's basically irrefutable. Liberals HATE that fact, but it's fact nonetheless.

Is Santorum considered a fiscal conservative now? He was Mr Earmark in the senate... I haven't heard any pundits from the right refer to him as a fiscal conservative...

If you are unsure if Santorum is a fiscal conservative or not, I can only assume that either you haven't heard a single word he has said about his economic vision, or that you have poor comprehension.

In any event, compared to Obama... Castro, Stalin, and Kim Jong Il are fiscal conservatives. Santorum believes in free market capitalism, small federal govt, and low taxes, allowing for individual freedom and prosperity. Obama is obviously a European style socialist who despises individual prosperity, unless the prosperous person votes Democrat that is.

Santorum isn't a libertarian or anything. But unlike Obama, he knows that you can't spend your way out of bankruptcy, and unlike Obama, he knows you cannot borrow your way out of debt. Unlike Obama, Santorum knows that in this environment, we have no business spending $1.5 trillion more than we take in. Finally, unlike Obama, Santorum concedes that social security and Medicare need fixing in order to be saved. Whenever a conservative statwes that irrefutable fact, Obama says that person hates old people and sick people, and that kind of manipulation works on folks who have zero intellectual curiorisity.

Where am I wrong?

Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!
Who said anything about atheists? You could believe in god and not be religious. Religion is man made, run by man, all rules created by man. I've studied religion all my life, fascinated by it, but I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much.
I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist.
But here is what I do know, and this is a fact. 12 yrs of catholic school and asked many leaders of the church and professors this to be sure
FACT - Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood. That every mass an ACTUAL miracle takes place and the host is turned into body, then you EAT the body of JC.
Thats the fact.
My opinion? Anyone that believes that is insane. Period. Thus I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics. (ps. most catholics dont believe that and dont follow many church rules, but its a FACT that the church does believe and teach that)
So, to each his own.

Because what he says on the stump will be different when he gets into office, based on his track record in the senate. IM Very HO even given my poor comprehension.

Ypo sem to have posted this on the wrong thread...

"Change a few words above and you could be writing for the Taliban!"

Wrong. You've never heard me say men should be killed for not believeing what I believe, or for having beards not to required length. I don't murder innocent people, I don't enslave women.

"I can never follow an organized religion. I know to much."

So you are assuming that the more knowledgable a person is, the less need he has for religion. That's a big assumption on your part.

"I dont for a minute believe someone who is religious is morally better than someone who is not or someone who is an atheist"

Than you're not nearly as knowledgable as you think you are. As I said, there are exceptions. There are horrible people who call themselves religious. But if someone is, say, a true devout Catholic, that almost necessarily means they are a good person.

" I feel intellectually superior to most hard core catholics."

You are entitled to your illusions. Most liberals feel that a mass murderer has a greater right to live than an unborn baby. Thus I feel intellectually and morally superior to every single hard-core liberal.

"Catholics believe that the sacrament of communion is the ACTUAL body and blood of JC, not a symbol, but actual body and blood."

I guess you know more than me, I'm just a Eucharistic minister who hands out communion every week at Catholic mass. I don't believe I'm actually cannibalizing the body of a person who lived 2000 years ago. Nor do I believe I'm simply eating a meaninglesss wafer. It's a symbolic gesture of my willingness, and desire, to receive Christ into my life.

You can paint us all as a bunch of insane pedophiles, as liberals like to do. We are human beings, menaing we are imperfect, and we screw up royally sometimes. But in the end, our religion motivates us to do some great things. At non-religious hospitals, for instance, they will refuse to treat you (for non-emergencies) if you cannot pay. At CAtholic hospitals, if you can't pay, you get treated for free, even if you aren't Catholic.

Do you, seriously, not see how anyone could have voted for Obama after the Wright rants? I had never thought that the association Obama had with Wright or the several other radicals in his life, including his mother, would be enough to stop those who want what he and his party stand for. Being black, no doubt, helped him defeat Hillary, and being Democrat was enough to hold the base, and running against Bush/Mcain/mostlyBush and a collapsing economy
was a strong enough ticket for those who want big and bigger government and thos who were disgusted with Bush.

Voting for a candidate is so much more than voting for his character. You vote for his party, its apparatus, its mission and political philosophy. And the latter is far more consequential than his character. If that great middle, the independents, vote merely on the basis of character or some other personal disgust with the previous administration, they also make the mistake of "voting for the man" rather than his true political mission.

I don't know what off-the-cuff remarks Santorum made that deeply troubled you. Were they mission statements to the effect that he would work diligently to fulfill as President?

What do you do if both candidates in the general election lack the character that you demand?

im not going to tell you or explain how people could have voted for O after hearing Rev Wright. I said I cant see how they could. not for me to explain
I've stated above what Santorum said, I cant vote for someone that believes they are morally superior because of their religion.

I wont argue w/Jim, he is entitled to his opinion. my whole family were devout catholics, most are divorced, many cheated on their spouses. They are imperfect. we all are. But are they happier and more successful, not in my experience. Jim - check me on the sacrament of communion - you'll see Im right.

Oh - and one more. You frequently ( and I agree with you) state the fact that states/cities with the lowest incomes and most poverty are always democratic. Change that to religious and look at the global population. The countries with the most devout religious followers are also the poorest, most backwards countries on the globe.

:devil2:, literally

For Jim -

First written by an archbishop

Is The Eucharist Really Christ's Body and Blood?

reviewed for catholic doctrine

Christ in the Eucharist | Catholic Answers


http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0996.asp
I told ya so!

I saw the bishop last week before school. He was talking to the kids as they were lining up - he shows up every few months. Bishops are the only people left who can really pull off wearing a cape - that's gotta be some kind of miracle.

No, I'm saying there is no need for the Feds to collect for the States then
turn around and refund it to them as they see fit. Costly and Controlling.
The Fed can collect what they need for public transportation and interstate.
The States can collect their own gasoline tax for their own needs.

Who knows more about what is needed for a State's road system and infrastructure,Washington or the States? Obvious.

Seems like they do it like this already.

The Fed could tax less and have increased oversight into State funded projects...you'd still have controlling.

If the States increased their taxes to compensate...you'd still be costly.

Perhaps with a little better oversight and no bridges to nowhere pork you could make the system a bit more efficient.

-spence

"Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? "
You understand the context of what I was saying, right? :rolleyes: Go vote for Santorum in the primary please. It is best for the country if he wins the primary.

1. Obama has never said a person who thinks medicare needs fixing hates old and sick people. By extension, the intelectual curiousity garbage.

2. Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. Yes, they are closer to Santorum, than Obama, but it is they are insane, not conservative.
3. Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue and a juvenile analysis of his positions.

Yes, I understand the context of what you where saying. I was pointing out that the entire context is wrong to begin with. The context of the Federal Government unconstitutionally usurping State and individual rights and powers is the problem, not just that all the politicians, including Santorum, operate in that context. In that context what ANY congressperson or president does is beyond the power that is consented by the governed. In that context, they are all acting as dictatorial bureaucrats. And I was more curious that you were objecting to Santorum's attempt to legislate in that context, but not to the actual existing laws and regulations that comprise that entire context and make possible what you see as some danagerous Santorum ploy.

Yes, I look at it from the same perspective if he were Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever. I am more concerned by his agenda to incorporate his religious beliefs into education than the government's attempts to raise the standards of education. I agree, both are wrong. Only one is fundamentally scary to me.

If you think what he attempted is scarier than the vehicle that allows him to attempt it, perhaps you're not seeing the forest for the trees.

The Founders intentionally precluded the central government from legislating or interfering not only in religious matters, but the great bulk of matters that pertain to our personal lives and the function of our local and State governments. It was a pre-eminent concern that the central power was limited to specific functions that would solidify the union but not infringe on State and individual rights. They had just freed themselves from a tyrannical government, and there was a great fear of unchecked central power, so they carefully, purposefully, crafted a form of government that would prevent such tyranny. What has evolved is the government they feared. The only reason Santorum could propose what offends you, is what the Federal Government has become. There are no ground rules, no constitution defining what it cannot do. It has abandoned the Constitution it pretends to follow, or that we think it does. There are no limits to its power except the fear that it may offend too many of us. It has the power to tell you what you can grow in your garden, how much, and whether you can sell it, and how you do so. It believes it can tell you what to buy. Santorum's attempt to introduce a counter balance to such power by instilling in our youth the possibility that there is another power and purpose in this life than that of the Federal Government is puny compared to what that government has become. That you can feel that Santorum's gambit is fundamentally scary, but that what the government has become and which allows him to attempt it, is not fundamentally scary, is puzzling.

"Obama has never said a person who thinks medicare needs fixing hates old and sick people. By extension, the intelectual curiousity garbage."

A few months ago, Paul Ryan said that we needed to overhaul Social Security and Medicare, in order to save those vital programs. Obama responded by saying that Ryan wanted to take benefits away from old people and sick people. Although to be fair, Obama has also hinted that those programs need to be cut in order to be saved...

"Castro, Stalin, Kim JOng Il are "conservative" compared to Obama. "

Ever hear of hyperbole Zimmy? OK. I'll keep it objective. Obama is adding more to our debt than any president in the history of our country, and to make it worse, he's wasting that money. Instead of helping entrepeneurs grow businesses and actually create wealth, he gave the majority of it to unions, saving public sector jobs that can only be saved again next year by raising taxes, ie, by destroying wealth.

"Obama despises individual prosperity. Completely untrue "

Obama has repeatedly said that the wealthy aren't paying their fair share. That is what is completely untrue. I have also posted several times that even if we eliminated the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, the extra tax revenue would take more than 500 years to pay down our debt. What that means is, we cannot tax our way out of this, but taxing is all he talks about. not only does he not want to talk about spending cuts, he is increasing spending.

You go ahead and tell me where I'm wrong, OK?

I don't need to... you said it yourself

SANTORUM should run as Romney's VP
at the last minute

Marco Rubio will be the VP pick, regardless of who wins the primary. Rubio might be the most valuable VP in the history of presidential politics. He gives the GOP Florida, which is a huge swing state. He energizes the conservative, Tea Party wing of the GOP, which Romney especially would need. And most importantly, he gives the GOP a shot at the Hispanic vote, which is invaluable. If Rubio convinces Hispanics to lean to the GOP, watch how fast liberals change their tune on immigration.

I'm personally not a huge Romney fan. But a Romney-Rubio ticket will have the best shot at defeating Obama.