Mccain's VP.

[britty 1]

Actually, I think children can make wise choices. My niece is a gym rat and eats a particularly healthy diet. She is also religious, and is satisfied with the answers she has received to the questions related to her beliefs. She is particularly bright, popular, well adjusted, and people are always commenting on what a great kid she is. Maybe your kids or your experiences are different. Everyone has an opinion. Mine isnt wrong - it just isnt yours.

Was she brought up to be religious? I'm hedging my bets on it. Religious mindset is far more often than not based upon environment.

ummm, she was brought up in a household that went to church each Sunday but didn't have religion forced upon her. Similar to my upbringing in fact. My parents for example are still church goers but I have not attended since I was around 14 or so. I have a belief system which of course is related to the faith within which I have been raised, but also accepts scientific teachings.

Was she brought up to be religious? I'm hedging my bets on it. Religious mindset is far more often than not based upon environment.

Alls I know - as an NRA member - and married to a former Alaskan - she supports gun ownership. I'll vote how the NRA tells me to vote in their next newsletter.

Oh wait . . . . . . I can't vote. . . . . . damn.

little

[britty 1]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Dalegg - totally agree with your comments. Why would Dems care who McCain picked as his VP ? If Obama is such a "smart" guy then we can only assume that his selection of Biden was a good one? Why do Dems feel the need to trash Palin? Are they so fearful of her or are they just pi$ed that McCain may have out"smarted" Obama with his selection?

As for me, I'm terrified. That's why I'm concerned about his VP choice. Contrary to the belief of some Democrats, I don't assume that Obama will win. I hope he does, but I have every faith in the stupidity of my fellow Americans. I'm terrified because McCain IS old and he IS senile. I'm terrified because it WOULD be likely that Palin would finish out McCain's term. I'm terrified because there ARE a lot of ignorant people in the US who will vote Republican no matter what. They will vote FOR "Pro-Life". They will vote FOR Creationism in schools. They support the US becoming a church-state; their paradise is the American version of Sharia.

My ONLY hope is that the sort of people who won't vote for a black man are also unlikely to vote for a woman. Even his supporters HAVE to know that McCain is going to be so senile that he has to step down within 2 years. Ergo, a vote for McCain is a vote for Palin for President. That won't set too well with some sorts.

In the end, Americans don't really vote for issues - not important ones, anyway. They vote for who they can identify with. Americans are stupid.

Obama to me is a little on the early "Tony Blair" side and that fills me with horror having seen the results of a Labour government in the UK. If I could vote, I would vote Republican, not because I want McCain in power, but more that he is the lesser of two evils for me, and yes will serve my needs better. My earlier point was related to people trashing Palin with every little titbit of info downloaded from the net. I still think its a fear tactic.

[alienlovechild 75]

SRVT, you really could benefit from taking a class in debate. You can't ignore someone's argument and proceed to repeat the same thoughts. It's called "no clash" because you're talking through your opponent. That being said let me show how it's done.

You're really in no position to suggest the latter, as a career in politics, including 10 years of being a "Senator" for the United States and Illinois. Did you happen to vote for George W. Bush?

State senators are nobodies compared to U.S. Senators. Are you a USC or Greek? Judging by your other posts I get the feeling your not familar with the American political system. A lot of Americans aren't either but you've got some unusual stands on positions. You're more novel than I thought. Yeah, I voted for Bush only because Gore and Kerry were worse. I had a soft spot for Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, the Dems gave up on moderates after him.

More importantly than school standards dropping off into the abyss (there's nothing educational about creationism anyways, especially in texts like the bible, from those who have read it, like myself, citing the lack of literary quality and factual substantiality laden within), there's a nice thing called the Constitution that allows people their religion without instituting it by state. While it is indeed violated fairly often, in bans against gay marriage, institution of a House Chaplain, allowing the Boy Scouts and churches to discriminate while getting public funding, and countless other ways, instituting religion into public schools for children is the ultimate slap in the face to the founding fathers who themselves (including their own immediate ancestry) escaped repressive government, and religion was one of the issues.

You can't ignore improving the quality of education by wasting time on pushing your own political agenda. Dumbing down the schools probably leads to more creationists believing in it. Gay marriage was banned by nearly every country on the planet and lot of them aren't Christian and a lot of them are secular. Anti-religious zealots like yourself are like religious nuts because they go over the same minor issues over and over again to stamp out any trace elements of the other side. Who cares about the House Chaplain? The Boy Scouts and churches are private I skip giving them public funds. Of course, I'd also defund all colleges (they all get Pell grants) that teach political indoctrination classes. Hate to break it to you but again you have no clue about another part of America- history. At the time of the Founders and far beyond them, many schools taught subjects using the Bible most of the time. Lots of Bibles printed in an age when books were expensive.

Federal funding, while not by any means a majority of the bill, has drastically reduced the costs to the state, which would be in even further budget crisis without this help. Regardless, the schools have the federal Constitution to follow, first and foremost, before the state comes into play. These federal laws, especially considering the Constitution and federal laws on rights or privacy matters, for instance, each public school must abide by.

S you're not even trying now. The Federal funding portion is only 9%. The U.S. Constitution doesn't come into play much because state constitutions and local policies dictate most issues. It's called federalism and . . . what's the use? You're gonna ignore this too.

"Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2007-2008, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 91 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources."

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Um, what percentage of kids are taught creationism? Must be a lot if this is such major issue. Numbers please?

It's been back and forth, since creationism has been pushed, and established, and de-established, rendered unconstitutional, and so forth. Pretty much impossible to get accurate numbers.

That's BS if it's such big issue there would be numbers. It's not widespread for public schools and it's just a scare tactic for liberal fund raisers. It's pretty easy to get numbers just by surveying some school districts for their policy on creationism. In my job I read plenty of studies . . . it's only impossible if you don't know anything about research and analysis. No wonder you don't care about quality in schools- you're only interested in silly witch hunt (ironic no?) issues.

Better avoid useful subjects that have relevance to things, since Barack Obama doesn't vicariously live through Reverend Wright, as they are, indeed, two different people, than consider the constitutionality of inserting religious teachings into public schools, and the Republican VP's lack of respect for separation of church and state.

Wright brought Obama to Jesus and his warped brand of Christianity was beaten into Obama's mind (which was an empty vessel) for 20 years then lied about never hearing Wright's radical views. Then there's omission of Obama days in Indonesia during his official biography prior to his acceptance speech and Obama and McCain's interview in a megachurch. Obama will do anything to get Christian voters so don't put all your "faith" in the False Messiah.

Edited August 31, 2008 by alienlovechild

[britty 1]

SRVT, you really could benefit from taking a class in debate. You can't ignore someone's argument and proceed to repeat the same thoughts. It's called "no clash" because you're talking through your opponent. That being said let me show how it's done.

You're really in no position to suggest the latter, as a career in politics, including 10 years of being a "Senator" for the United States and Illinois. Did you happen to vote for George W. Bush?

State senators are nobodies compared to U.S. Senators. Are you a USC or Greek? Judging by your other posts I get the feeling your not familar with the American political system. A lot of Americans aren't either but you've got some unusual stands on positions. You're more novel than I thought. Yeah, I voted for Bush only because Gore and Kerry were worse. I had a soft spot for Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, the Dems gave up on moderates after him.

More importantly than school standards dropping off into the abyss (there's nothing educational about creationism anyways, especially in texts like the bible, from those who have read it, like myself, citing the lack of literary quality and factual substantiality laden within), there's a nice thing called the Constitution that allows people their religion without instituting it by state. While it is indeed violated fairly often, in bans against gay marriage, institution of a House Chaplain, allowing the Boy Scouts and churches to discriminate while getting public funding, and countless other ways, instituting religion into public schools for children is the ultimate slap in the face to the founding fathers who themselves (including their own immediate ancestry) escaped repressive government, and religion was one of the issues.

You can't ignore improving the quality of education by wasting time on pushing your own political agenda. Dumbing down the schools probably leads to more creationists believing in it. Gay marriage was banned by nearly every country on the planet and lot of them aren't Christian and a lot of them are secular. Anti-religious zealots like yourself are like religious nuts because they go over the same minor issues over and over again to stamp out any trace elements of the other side. Who cares about the House Chaplain? The Boy Scouts and churches are private I skip giving them public funds. Of course, I'd also defund all colleges (they all get Pell grants) that teach political indoctrination classes. Hate to break it to you but again you have no clue about another part of America- history. At the time of the Founders and far beyond them, many schools taught subjects using the Bible most of the time. Lots of Bibles printed in an age when books were expensive.

Federal funding, while not by any means a majority of the bill, has drastically reduced the costs to the state, which would be in even further budget crisis without this help. Regardless, the schools have the federal Constitution to follow, first and foremost, before the state comes into play. These federal laws, especially considering the Constitution and federal laws on rights or privacy matters, for instance, each public school must abide by.

S you're not even trying now. The Federal funding portion is only 9%. The U.S. Constitution doesn't come into play much because state constitutions and local policies dictate most issues. It's called federalism and . . . what's the use? You're gonna ignore this too.

"Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The structure of education finance in America reflects this predominant State and local role. Of an estimated $1 trillion being spent nationwide on education at all levels for school year 2007-2008, a substantial majority will come from State, local, and private sources. This is especially true at the elementary and secondary level, where just over 91 percent of the funds will come from non-Federal sources."

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Um, what percentage of kids are taught creationism? Must be a lot if this is such major issue. Numbers please?

It's been back and forth, since creationism has been pushed, and established, and de-established, rendered unconstitutional, and so forth. Pretty much impossible to get accurate numbers.

That's BS if it's such big issue there would be numbers. It's not widespread for public schools and it's just a scare tactic for liberal fund raisers. It's pretty easy to get numbers just by surveying some school districts for their policy on creationism. In my job I read plenty of studies . . . it's only impossible if you don't know anything about research and analysis. No wonder you don't care about quality in schools- you're only interested in silly witch hunt (ironic no?) issues.

Better avoid useful subjects that have relevance to things, since Barack Obama doesn't vicariously live through Reverend Wright, as they are, indeed, two different people, than consider the constitutionality of inserting religious teachings into public schools, and the Republican VP's lack of respect for separation of church and state.

Wright brought Obama to Jesus and his warped brand of Christianity was beaten into Obama's mind (which was an empty vessel) for 20 years then lied about never hearing Wright's radical views. Then there's omission of Obama days in Indonesia during his official biography prior to his acceptance speech and Obama and McCain's interview in a megachurch. Obama will do anything to get Christian voters so don't put all your "faith" in the False Messiah.

AlienLoveChild - Your post was enlightening, intelligent and informative. Thank you.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

20. The Alaska republican party is in tatters as it attempts to handle multiple corruption scandals.

I think you already said this- yes, number 6.

Oh, I really blew it on my response to this one! This is not the same issue as number 6, in fact this is probably the very worst example you could have possibly used to show that Palin is a bad choice.

I mean, you know what her role in those corruption scandals was don't you?

Palin was against the corruption of others in her party, but perhaps not against a little corruption to achieve a little revenge for her sister if it turns out there is anything to the story of her trying to get her ex-brother in law fired and in a snit firing/making sure his supervisor was fired.

Let's face it folks, we have a set of double turds to choose from this election. Despite my dislike for McCain his poop sandwich may at least have a bit of mayo to offset the taste...

[alienlovechild 75]

AlienLoveChild - Your post was enlightening, intelligent and informative. Thank you.

That would be a first for me.

[jundp 191]

Gay marriage was banned by nearly every country on the planet and lot of them aren't Christian and a lot of them are secular.

This is totally OT, but I'll comment anyway. There are 22 countries that allow same-sex partnerships/civil unions/marriage (called differently in different countries) and another 6 or 7 that recognize foreign unions. Many other countries (including the US) recognize in some area. Many of these countries are primarily Christian as far as population.

I only know this because I've done a lot of research on it. I just wanted to point this out.

Also, as to the education question. As an educator I have to say again that religious topics such as Creationism have absolutely no place in a public school system. Not in mandatory classes. Perhaps as an elective that wasn't a requirement, it would be acceptable (for example, I took a class on World Religions at a public school in high school. I also took a class on Bible as Literature in college). But not as a requirement.

[alienlovechild 75]

Gay marriage was banned by nearly every country on the planet and lot of them aren't Christian and a lot of them are secular.

This is totally OT, but I'll comment anyway. There are 22 countries that allow same-sex partnerships/civil unions/marriage (called differently in different countries) and another 6 or 7 that recognize foreign unions. Many other countries (including the US) recognize in some area. Many of these countries are primarily Christian as far as population.

I only know this because I've done a lot of research on it. I just wanted to point this out.

I haven't done any research on the subject until a minute ago. Notice I used the word "was banned" on purpose.

It's interesting this supposed fundemental right was never recognized by a single national government in history (to my knowledge) until 2001. Considering there are nearly 200 nations, the handful that allow gay marriage are a tiny minority. Guess were not worried about world opinion on that issue.

"The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001."

"Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with two states in the United States, Massachusetts and recently California"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Interestingly, only Christian nations allow gay marriage. Pretty strange for such a reputably intolerate faith. For the record, the U.S. government doesn't allow gay marriage just 2 states.

Also, as to the education question. As an educator I have to say again that religious topics such as Creationism have absolutely no place in a public school system. Not in mandatory classes. Perhaps as an elective that wasn't a requirement, it would be acceptable (for example, I took a class on World Religions at a public school in high school. I also took a class on Bible as Literature in college).

I didn't say anything about mandatory creationism classes in public schools.

We need to save our kids from thinly veiled religious instruction in classes. We should ban talk about Galileo because we might have explain that the Church thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Don't mention Columbus or the flat earth theory. Also ban classes on the U.S. space program and the solar system -Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (Greek and Roman gods) programs are an attempt to brainwash kids into believing in the planets also named after gods.

So many books to burn and so little time.

[Peikko 1,575]

Gay marriage was banned by nearly every country on the planet and lot of them aren't Christian and a lot of them are secular.

This is totally OT, but I'll comment anyway. There are 22 countries that allow same-sex partnerships/civil unions/marriage (called differently in different countries) and another 6 or 7 that recognize foreign unions. Many other countries (including the US) recognize in some area. Many of these countries are primarily Christian as far as population.

I only know this because I've done a lot of research on it. I just wanted to point this out.

I haven't done any research on the subject until a minute ago. Notice I used the word "was banned" on purpose.

It's interesting this supposed fundemental right was never recognized by a single national government in history (to my knowledge) until 2001. Considering there are nearly 200 nations, the handful that allow gay marriage are a tiny minority. Guess were not worried about world opinion on that issue.

"The Netherlands was the first country to allow same-sex marriage in 2001."

"Same-sex marriages are also legal in Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa and Spain, along with two states in the United States, Massachusetts and recently California"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Interestingly, only Christian nations allow gay marriage. Pretty strange for such a reputably intolerate faith. For the record, the U.S. government doesn't allow gay marriage just 2 states.

Also, as to the education question. As an educator I have to say again that religious topics such as Creationism have absolutely no place in a public school system. Not in mandatory classes. Perhaps as an elective that wasn't a requirement, it would be acceptable (for example, I took a class on World Religions at a public school in high school. I also took a class on Bible as Literature in college).

I didn't say anything about mandatory creationism classes in public schools.

We need to save our kids from thinly veiled religious instruction in classes. We should ban talk about Galileo because we might have explain that the Church thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. Don't mention Columbus or the flat earth theory. Also ban classes on the U.S. space program and the solar system -Mercury, Gemini and Apollo (Greek and Roman gods) programs are an attempt to brainwash kids into believing in the planets also named after gods.

So many books to burn and so little time.

What a disingenuous argument. That is so ridiculous I just can't imagine that you were serious when you wrote it down.

Historical accounts of the progression of scientific thought and man's attempts to understand the world around them are one thing, and something that should properly be taught in the class room. Creationism certainly does not fall into that category. It is a regressive attempt to push back or deny what we do know about how life evolved in favour of what is at best an allegorical story and at worst simply a fairy tale. As has been stated time and time again, if someone wishes to teach this in a class on theology, fair enough, but as a science class as an alternate to evolution? Unfathomable to be honest, that anyone at all would argue this case.

[alienlovechild 75]

Creationism certainly does not fall into that category. It is a regressive attempt to push back or deny what we do know about how life evolved in favour of what is at best an allegorical story and at worst simply a fairy tale. As has been stated time and time again, if someone wishes to teach this in a class on theology, fair enough, but as a science class as an alternate to evolution? Unfathomable to be honest, that anyone at all would argue this case.

It's called teaching in context. Follow the analogies . . .

Biblical view Modern view

creationism evolution

Sun revolves Earth Earth around Sun

Earth is flat (in Bible?) Earth is sphere

How can you teach ANY progression in thought without explaining the old, even discredited view? Progression means going from one thing to someone else.

Think we need to rename the planets? It's promoting religion in science classrooms. Sounds dangerous to me.

Um, who said creationism should be taught as a substitute to evolution? Please direct your comments to that poster.

Look, you've obviously blinded yourself due to your dislike (to put it lightly) of religion so let's remove it.

I don't agree with Marx, Mao, Lenin or Hitler but I do believe their beliefs should be taught. They,too, are

regressive but I wouldn't ban all mention of them. You can burn all the books you like to shield kids but it merely furthers the cause of ignorance not progress.

Edited August 31, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Peikko 1,575]

Your argument would only ever hold any water if those calling for creationism to be taught in schools simply wanted an 'addendum' on the 'what's gone before' argument but that is not the case which you and I both know. All this, "it's just an example of progression" poppycock (your disingenuos argument because you know full well that no one has called for creationism to be included in the curriculum as an example of an outdated theory from way back when) is just slight of hand.

Those calling for creationism to be taught in school, such as VP pick Sarah, want it to be taught as an alternate to evolution, as creditable alternate no less. Your desire to paint me as some kind of anti religious nut is as plain as day, and simply doesn't hold any water. I'll repeat it for you, just so you are clear. I have no problem with creationism being taught in the proper context, theology, but it has no place in the science class room or as a creditable alterternate to evolution. That this VP candidate believes that it should be along with her 'holier than thou' stance on abortion and her less than steller resume all make her a totally unsuitable VP in my opinion, and also go along way to discrediting McCain simply because he expects the voter to take this pick seriously.

Now, you may think that this Sarah person is the best thing since sliced bread, and you may think that McCain and his side kick make a great team and you can't wait to vote for them. My opinion is this highlights just why the current GOP candidate would make a totally unsuitable president.

[Peikko 1,575]

Creationism certainly does not fall into that category. It is a regressive attempt to push back or deny what we do know about how life evolved in favour of what is at best an allegorical story and at worst simply a fairy tale. As has been stated time and time again, if someone wishes to teach this in a class on theology, fair enough, but as a science class as an alternate to evolution? Unfathomable to be honest, that anyone at all would argue this case.

It's called teaching in context. Follow the analogies . . .

Biblical view Modern view

creationism evolution

Sun revolves Earth Earth around Sun

Earth is flat (in Bible?) Earth is sphere

How can you teach ANY progression in thought without explaining the old, even discredited view? Progression means going from one thing to someone else.

Think we need to rename the planets? It's promoting religion in science classrooms. Sounds dangerous to me.

Um, who said creationism should be taught as a substitute to evolution? Please direct your comments to that poster.

Look, you've obviously blinded yourself due to your dislike (to put it lightly) of religion so let's remove it.

I don't agree with Marx, Mao, Lenin or Hitler but I do believe their beliefs should be taught. They,too, are

regressive but I wouldn't ban all mention of them. You can burn all the books you like to shield kids but it merely furthers the cause of ignorance not progress.

I have never, ever avocated book burning or ignorance, how cowardly of you to try to put that on me instead of sticking to the argument. If Sarah wanted creationism to be taught in the context you have mentioned, as a discredited theory, we woudn't be having any discussion over this. How sly, and sleazy your arguments are.

[alienlovechild 75]

Your argument would only ever hold any water if those calling for creationism to be taught in schools simply wanted an 'addendum' on the 'what's gone before' argument but that is not the case which you and I both know. All this, "it's just an example of progression" poppycock (your disingenuos argument because you know full well that no one has called for creationism to be included in the curriculum as an example of an outdated theory from way back when) is just slight of hand.

I was referring your "progression" argument and going from there. I have no idea if my view was ever tried before but you seemed to more obsessed with creationism or more accurately opposition to it than I. The point is largely moot anyway because so few kids are exposed to creationism anyway. It's a fake issue and fear tactic to raise campaign funds for liberal candidates. We both know the federal role in education is tiny and there's no way the federal government will mandate it. Feel free to correct me if you can show she said wants creationism nationally. There's as much as a chance as adding witchcraft to math classes.

Those calling for creationism to be taught in school, such as VP pick Sarah, want it to be taught as an alternate to evolution, as creditable alternate no less. Your desire to paint me as some kind of anti religious nut is as plain as day, and simply doesn't hold any water. I'll repeat it for you, just so you are clear. I have no problem with creationism being taught in the proper context, theology, but it has no place in the science class room or as a creditable alterternate to evolution. That this VP candidate believes that it should be along with her 'holier than thou' stance on abortion and her less than steller resume all make her a totally unsuitable VP in my opinion, and also go along way to discrediting McCain simply because he expects the voter to take this pick seriously.

You know got the talking points down on Palin when google has a special link on "palin creationism" when you type in creationism. That was quick for a candidacy only a couple days old. You and I know that's just a coincidence. So the proper place for creationism is in a theology class. You want creationism taught in theology classes in public schools? I don't know the case law on that but I don't think it's currently illegal to hold theology classes in public schools.

As far as Palin's experience goes we both know if she was a white male with a similar resume she wouldn't be considered; however, the exact same thing is true for Obama but he's on the top of the ticket. Obama is going to have a hard time pointing out Palin's inexperience without people laughing at the hypocrisy. That's not just me but his own, VP pick, Biden who said Obama isn't qualified during the debates. Your expecting voters to forget all that stuff for the fake issue of creationism. By the way, looked at poll that said only 16% wanted creationism only so it ain't gonna happen.

I have never, ever avocated book burning or ignorance, how cowardly of you to try to put that on me instead of sticking to the argument. If Sarah wanted creationism to be taught in the context you have mentioned, as a discredited theory, we woudn't be having any discussion over this. How sly, and sleazy your arguments are.

"Sarah" are you two on first name basis? Probably not. I was trying to figure out where you draw the line. So you are only fixated on the evils of creationism. Personally, it's a tempest in teapot instead improving education in America we get all this malarky generated by the campaign season. I was just musing on creationism and if there were other similar examples of the mixing of religion and science or religion in other subjects but you didn't touch that because it wasn't in the talking points?

By the way are you a science teacher, teacher, concerned parent or all around busy body on this issue? Just wanted to know if you have a greater stake in it than the average voter.

Edited September 1, 2008 by alienlovechild

[alienlovechild 75]

I meant

I don't know the case law on that but I think it's currently illegal to hold theology classes in public schools.

[jundp 191]

Creationism certainly does not fall into that category. It is a regressive attempt to push back or deny what we do know about how life evolved in favour of what is at best an allegorical story and at worst simply a fairy tale. As has been stated time and time again, if someone wishes to teach this in a class on theology, fair enough, but as a science class as an alternate to evolution? Unfathomable to be honest, that anyone at all would argue this case.

It's called teaching in context. Follow the analogies . . .

Biblical view Modern view

creationism evolution

Sun revolves Earth Earth around Sun

Earth is flat (in Bible?) Earth is sphere

How can you teach ANY progression in thought without explaining the old, even discredited view? Progression means going from one thing to someone else.

Think we need to rename the planets? It's promoting religion in science classrooms. Sounds dangerous to me.

Um, who said creationism should be taught as a substitute to evolution? Please direct your comments to that poster.

Look, you've obviously blinded yourself due to your dislike (to put it lightly) of religion so let's remove it.

I don't agree with Marx, Mao, Lenin or Hitler but I do believe their beliefs should be taught. They,too, are

regressive but I wouldn't ban all mention of them. You can burn all the books you like to shield kids but it merely furthers the cause of ignorance not progress.

I have never, ever avocated book burning or ignorance, how cowardly of you to try to put that on me instead of sticking to the argument. If Sarah wanted creationism to be taught in the context you have mentioned, as a discredited theory, we woudn't be having any discussion over this. How sly, and sleazy your arguments are.

I think he was directing the book-burning at me. Because, since I don't agree that Creationism should be taught in school, and I made a comment about gay-marriage, I am clearly a book-burning, crazy, ignorance loving hypocrite. Which is weird, because I missed that class when I was getting my MA in English Literature. Probably because I was too busy hugging trees or inciting gays to marry.

I'm crazy like that. I like to ban things. Muahahahaha.

Edited September 1, 2008 by jundp