Just curious, would any of you vote for Santorum

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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.

[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