Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you feel that Santorum's religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot separate them from his duty as President, I can understand your reluctance to vote for him.

bingo

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

bingo

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do? He has stated personal beliefs on morality to groups of like minded people not as political doctrine to be implemented, but as like minded reasons for the deterioration of society. Is there a record of his imposing religious beliefs rather than ethical practices through legislation? Is he not allowed to have personal beliefs outside the political arena? Are those who are opposed to so-called conservative litmus tests for politicians in favor of such tests to weed out religious folks who actually believe their faith? How many polliticians have we accepted, even praised who have been outside the norm in their personal behaviour? Barney Frank is praised for his politics, not his sexual preferences. Bill Clinton is a major hero, but not for his sexual preferences. How is it that we can accept that great number of politicians in our history who have led disreputatable personal lives, yet a Santorum is a threat? Is it that others have preferred not to openly speak of who they really were or are? Does that comfort you to not know? If they lie or hide who they are, what else do they hide? Can you trust that the pretty words in which they couch their policies and legislation are the truth, or just expedient to get your vote? Whatever threat he presents is not in how he leads his own life or in his opinions on social mores, but in what he will support (i.e. the Constiltution).

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If you are going to take his word that what he claims to be his personal religious tenets are who he really is, then why will you not take his word that he will not impose his personal beliefs on others via government force as, he says, the Democrats do?

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

huh?

In proposing the amendment, Santorum addressed the Congress:

This is an amendment that is a sense of the Senate. It is a sense of the Senate that deals with the subject of intellectual freedom with respect to the teaching of science in the classroom, in primary and secondary education. It is a sense of the Senate that does not try to dictate curriculum to anybody; quite the contrary, it says there should be freedom to discuss and air good scientific debate within the classroom. In fact, students will do better and will learn more if there is this intellectual freedom to discuss. I will read this sense of the Senate. It is simply two sentences—frankly, two rather innocuous sentences—that hopefully this Senate will embrace: "It is the sense of the Senate that—

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.


you do realize that people of faith generally believe that there is an intelligent design to our planet and universe rather than some amazing coincidence/accident that we as humans are slowly figuring out, being the only accident capable of or even attempting to figure it out as the most intelligent accidents in the universe unless you believe in space aliens or something crazy like that

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject.
It simply says there are disagreements in scientific theories out there that are continually tested.

Yup, that's what a good educational curriculum is all about, looking at all the data, theories, ideas, etc.
not just pick and choose what some burecrat thinks should be studied or not.
Freedom of information so each can come to their own conclusions.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

not just pick and choose what some burecrat thinks should be studied or not.

Which is what he was doing. He is the "burecrat" (sic), in this case. He wanted science classes to teach that certain things are "best explained by intelligent design as opposed to natural selection." That is different than a discussion that certain religions believe in creation and has no scientific basis or business in a science class; it belongs in a theology class or Sunday school. If you want your kids taught creationism, take them to church.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If you want your kids taught creationism, take them to church.

Or a religious based private school.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Maybe because as my state senator, he tried to pass a federal bill to require the teaching of creationism in science classrooms. That is imposing his religious beliefs through government force.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

yup......

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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. .

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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.

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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. .

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

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.