Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[Joe]

It's not a "so called religious litmus test."
It's a criteria without which a republican candidate can't get the backing of the Christian Conservative base, which means he can't get the the nomination. The Christian Conservatives are driving the bus. The Fiscal Conservatives are in the back shaking their heads, because they know they are going to lose over a constitutional amendment which is not going to be rolled back.

[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.

[justplugit]

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

1. Gravity is a 'theory' as well... theory is a good thing in science... theory means tested and tested and tested over and over again and found to be valid.

2. Any time you introduce a religious doctrine (i.e. the bible) into a science class, it triggers that. If you want to teach it in a theology class (which a broad religious class would be part of a 'well rounded' education imho.)

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

theory means tested and tested and tested over and over again and found to be valid.

Remember, you're talking to mostly non-scientists here. The layperson usually regards a "theory" as something that is supposed but not yet proven. Scientists on the other hand would more likely use it for something that's successfully gone through the process.

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

This is a good point.

-spence

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It shouldn't be taught as relegion in a public school, but as a theory compared to
the unproven Big Bang Theory or any other unproven theory.

How does that interfere with sepearation of church and state?

A good education should be well rounded.

Obviously the other two beat me to it, but creation isn't a theory. The big bang is testable and has yet to be disproved. It is based on mathematics and observable phenomena. Its validity is repeatedly strengthened with continuing observation. I am curious how creationism should be taught in science classes? Would I have to say some people who have very limited scientific knowledge think the Earth is 6000 years old even though that is impossible? Would I have to mention the Hopi's believed Earth was held up by turtles? What about the religious belief that if one doesn't live their life properly, they may be reincarnated as a snail? I encountered a group of school students at the grand canyon who were sharing that some of the fossils in the sedimentary rock there were actually Cheerios placed there by the government. I don't know who to credit with the quote, but someone said it well, "Rick Santorum is one of the finest minds of the 13th century?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The big bang is testable and has yet to be disproved.

When it is proved it will be a fact, until then it is still a theory.
Until then, imho, there are other theories that should be studied as part of a good educational curriculum. It is not my purpose to argue one theory over the other here, but to say a truly educated person should want to know and study all of the theories in a field. Until it is proven, a theory is speculation.

[Joe]

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by justplugit

When it is proved it will be a fact, until then it is still a theory.
Until then, imho, there are other theories that should be studied as part of a good educational curriculum.

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.

[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 RIROCKHOUND

Climate change can be a valid scientific discussion (that is usually spun into politics). Creation/Evolution is not.

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

[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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Joe

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.
.
.

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

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?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

...the founders were pretty smart

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

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?

Absolutely!

[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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

My state takes federal money.

Federal money? The Federal Gvt. has its own money? I thought it was the peoople's money. Doesn't the Federal Gvt. take the money from the people? Doesn't it take it from the people of your State in the first place, before your State "takes" it back? Isn't Big Brother bribing and coercing your State and its people with their own money?

He was imposing his religious beliefs in education law.

It's a little more complicated than that. Congressmen are, constitutionally, supposed to be representing the will of their constitutents, not imposing beliefs against that will. Nor do they have, on their own, that power. It requires two thirds of Congress to allow consideration of an amendment, and must be ratified by three fourths of the States. Much, much tougher, aparently, than forcing us to by health insurance, even though there is no constitutional provision for the Federal Gvt. to mandate that we must buy anything. Nor is there a provision that the Federal Gvt can "impose" ANY education law. And if Santorum was mispercieving the will of his constituents, he could be unelected.

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.

Again, this is the reason why the Constitution does not grant such power to the Federal Gvt. It does not grant the Federal Gvt power to create education law. But, of course, voila, it does, and you seem to be okay with that, except not if it presents theories of creationism.

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.

Theocracy!?!? OK, I'm with you, if Santorum was proposing an ammendment to create a theocratic state, he is clearly not fit for office. Of course, as was mentioned, he doesn't have the power to do that. And, you can thank the 17t ammendment for giving Senators the ability to be lone activists. But you're OK with federal involvement in education, just not . . .

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.

[Joe]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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?

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by zimmy

My state takes federal money. .

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[RIJIMMY]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

In a time of a completely destroyed economy, massive unemployment, an administration that hints more and more about increased action against Iran and tax law that is complete nonsense, Santorum chooses to focus on birth control, teaching creationism in schools and the government getting further and further involved with our personal lives.

I've said this before... Santorum is a front runner because he appeals to the religious fringe. Religious people in the US are passionate about their religious beliefs, not as much as those psychopathic Islam followers in the Middle East the riot and kill over a burnt book, but still passionate. That religious passion is the only reason Santorum is relevant today, but it's also the reason he would be completely destroyed in a general election.

More people are declared Independents now than either Dems or Repubs. Elections are won in the middle. Romney used to appeal somewhat to moderates but his lack of a spine has him pandering to the fringe and boasting "hey look! I can be conservative too".

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

wow, this sure got out of whack!

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.

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.