Teaching Creationism in public schools

[matthew]

~lol~ ... Hey guyz ... I DON'T want Creationism taught in our publik Skoolz. All I want is a proper interpretation of the First Amendment.

See ... you left-wingnuts are so quick to jump to conclusions. Such religious zealots you are! ~lol~

Vi

Left-wingnuts? Remind me which party is pushing for STIFFER penalties for pot? Republican stoners are like gay republicans, voting against their own interest.

Are you looking for interpretations via president?

 

[ViRedd]

Left-wingnuts? Remind me which party is pushing for STIFFER penalties for pot? Republican stoners are like gay republicans, voting against their own interest.

Are you looking for interpretations via president?

Do some research, matthew. Check out the astronomical increase in the pot arrests under Clinton.

To answer your question though ... BOTH parties are the Stupid Party when it comes to the suppression of pot ... and any drug for that matter.

Look ... the so called War on Drugs is not that at all ... its a war on the American people. Its about gaining control over every aspect of our lives. Its about eliminating our financial liberty. You've heard about the money laundering laws, I'm sure.

In a truly free society, it is none of the government's business what a citizen smokes, snorts, injects or ingests, providing the rights of another are not violated in the process.

Vi

 

[hom36rown]

None? Evolution has been fact since the 1800s.

I think he was being sarcastic, well atleast I hope

 

[Doctor Pot]

As for the Atheists and Agnostics feeling like something is being forced down their throats, how about the way they force their "beliefs" down our throats during Christmas, etc. saying we aren't alowed to practice our beliefs.

Has that ever happened to anyone in the US, ever?

Nixon started the War on Drugs, and Nancy Reagan was one of its biggest supporters. Clinton wasn't any worse.

 

[CrackerJax]

Clinton wasn't any better either. No brownie points there. Clinton likes brownies.

Funny how none of the Pol's are mentioning weed as an issue. from what I can tell neither candidate is gonna touch the issue when elected. that's a shame.


out.

 

[matthew]

I don't see the harm in teaching someone to have a little bit of faith. Teaching religion is one thing, but promoting faith is entirely different. As long as the promotion of faith isn't geared toward one idea of thinking it shouldn't hurt. As for the Atheists and Agnostics feeling like something is being forced down their throats, how about the way they force their "beliefs" down our throats during Christmas, etc. saying we aren't alowed to practice our beliefs.

What is faith? It is believing in something inspite or without evidence, that is not something I want my kids learning.

 

[matthew]

Do some research, matthew. Check out the astronomical increase in the pot arrests under Clinton.

To answer your question though ... BOTH parties are the Stupid Party when it comes to the suppression of pot ... and any drug for that matter.

Look ... the so called War on Drugs is not that at all ... its a war on the American people. Its about gaining control over every aspect of our lives. Its about eliminating our financial liberty. You've heard about the money laundering laws, I'm sure.

In a truly free society, it is none of the government's business what a citizen smokes, snorts, injects or ingests, providing the rights of another are not violated in the process.

Vi

I am not a fan of partisan politics but Republicans have always been tougher on "drug offenders". I am right there with you on freedom but voting for this latest crop of Republicans is going to get you Fascism, not liberty.

 

[matthew]

Why not teach astrology? Not teach it as an end all, but as subject matter. Isn't that what education is about?

I mean, you'd be perfectly OK with Marxist theory being taught as well as free market capitalism .... err ... Oh never mind.

Vi

Ya because free market capitalism is working out so well it needed $800,000,000,000 from the federal government to survive. I hate to tell you but there has to be a balance.

 

[lopezri]

I'm surprised that nobody has brought up the concept of Libertarianism yet in this thread. I was sure that the majority of people on this site would be Libertarians. Has anyone ready "Somebody's Gotta Say It" by Neal Boortz. That's a great read and his ideologys seem to be very close to "ours here". I think Libertarians are one of the only political parties out there that actually condone the use of marijuana.

 

[cleatis]

Since Palin wants to do it I thought I would ask about it here.

I think someone already said this, but sure, only if churches start teaching evolution.

Church is where we learn about Adam and Eve, class is where we learn science.

 

[lopezri]

Left-wingnuts? Remind me which party is pushing for STIFFER penalties for pot? Republican stoners are like gay republicans, voting against their own interest.

Are you looking for interpretations via president?

Don't be so quick to jump on Republicans and being gay. Remember that Abe Lincoln (Who was a major component in freeing the slaves by the way) was rumored to be gay and he was Republican. Where do you think they get the term "Log Cabin Republicans"? Regular, everyday Republicans usually stand for free market and smaller government, where as Democrats have been infiltrated by Socialists and therefore stand more for big government, more governmental control, control of the masses.

As far as the gay community is concerned, even though I am gay, they really piss me off! Democrat DOES NOT EQUAL Gay Friendly!!! Biden just said last night that he and Obama do not support gay marriage. I know, I know, so did Palin but at least that was no big surprise. The gay community needs to start doing their own thinking and stop depending on other people to come up with the answers for them.

 

[cleatis]

Don't be so quick to jump on Republicans and being gay. Remember that Abe Lincoln (Who was a major component in freeing the slaves by the way) was rumored to be gay and he was Republican. Where do you think they get the term "Log Cabin Republicans"? Regular, everyday Republicans usually stand for free market and smaller government, where as Democrats have been infiltrated by Socialists and therefore stand more for big government, more governmental control, control of the masses.

As far as the gay community is concerned, even though I am gay, they really piss me off! Democrat DOES NOT EQUAL Gay Friendly!!! Biden just said last night that he and Obama do not support gay marriage. I know, I know, so did Palin but at least that was no big surprise. The gay community needs to start doing their own thinking and stop depending on other people to come up with the answers for them.

I don't really know a whole lot about ol Abe, but I think the thought of him being gay was pretty much just hearsay. I remember a few people made a big deal out of it because he slept in the same bed as another man on some trip, but at that time it wasn't that big of a deal. Anyhow I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure the guy wasn't gay. But who knows?
but personally I kind of think that Obama is trying to look more socially republican so he can get votes from the fence sitters. In a way that would be kind of smart because die hard dems are going to vote for the democrat, he knows damn good and well he has the democrat vote, he's looking for the swing voters...


I think your last line said it best. But I think it's more than just the gay community that needs to do that, I think we all need to.

 

[Doctor Pot]

Yeah, the majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. Every time it's come up for a referendum, it's been voted down. Even in California. And that's California damn it!

As for Lincoln:
The Straight Dope: Was Abraham Lincoln gay?

 

[lopezri]

I'm not saying that Americans don't support gay marriage. I'm just saying that my partner and I, eventhough we consider ourselves married to each other, we don't need the government, the church, or anyone else to acknowledge our marriage. I'd love to have them acknowledge it, but I'm not willing to give up the freedoms I do have (such as freedom of speech {Which is under fire right now because the Democrats are trying to get rid of Talk Radio because it challenges their Socialistic ideals too much}) just to have them approve of whom I sleep with.

 

[NewGrowth]

Since Palin wants to do it I thought I would ask about it here.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard and is one of the reasons I will not vote for Palin.

 

[Stoney McFried]

No, no, a thousand times no.They can keep their religion away from my children.It's all brainwashing.

Since Palin wants to do it I thought I would ask about it here.

No.If they want faith, they must be allowed to find it themselves.Stick to the facts in schools, not conjecture.And everyone can practice their beliefs...IN THEIR OWN HOMES.

I don't see the harm in teaching someone to have a little bit of faith. Teaching religion is one thing, but promoting faith is entirely different. As long as the promotion of faith isn't geared toward one idea of thinking it shouldn't hurt. As for the Atheists and Agnostics feeling like something is being forced down their throats, how about the way they force their "beliefs" down our throats during Christmas, etc. saying we aren't alowed to practice our beliefs.

 

[undertheice]

for the last couple of centuries every single president and vice-president has believed the same christian nonsense and it hasn't spelled the doom of our civilization. why is it that anyone should be so concerned with another of these lunatics gaining access to the halls of power?

why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? it's not as if the little bastards are paying any attention anyway. though there seems to be little or no evidence to back it up, creationism seems to be an acceptable theory for millions of americans so why not introduce young minds to it in a rational setting? there are many who are willing to spout such absurd statements as "Evolution has been fact since the 1800s", but we should probably remember that evolution is merely another theory that cannot possibly be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. if we are going to ask our children to come to an informed conclusion, they should be given all of the information available and allowed to decide which theory best suits the world around them. refusing to give them access to such classical references as religion is merely another form of censorship. a well rounded individual should be aware of all the possibilities and given the freedom to choose.

refusing to acknowledge creationism might even be seen as contrary to the spirit of the first amendment. by ignoring the phrase " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" we have managed to abolish religion from the public square, but is that the true intention ofthe first law of this land? our quest for a more rational outlook on life has led us to embrace the secular and shun the spiritual, if we can't touch it then it doesn't exist. at the same time; we willingly accept the word of the scientific community as if it were gospel and genuflect to the religion of logic, but our blind belief in the infallibility of scientific conjecture makes us no better than the primitive kneeling before his altar and the persecution of traditional religious thought reeks of the inquisition.

if we consider the theory of evolution so superior to its predecessors, then why are we so afraid of a logical comparison?

 

[puffdamagikdragon]

Well, refusing to acknowledge the Great Spaghetti Monster mite be seen as contrary to the first amendment.

Matthew, you make the most exxcellent points. I was gonna respond, but you said it better.

 

[hom36rown]

evolution = science

creationism = ?

 

[hom36rown]

science-a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

creationism definitely doesnt fall into the category of science, so what class would you teach it in?