Results 81 to 82 of 82
Thread: Should Presidential Candidates have to handwrite Constitution before taking office?
-
09-16-10, 08:17 PM #81
Re: Should Presidential Candidates have to handwrite Constitution before taking offic
-
09-18-10, 11:34 AM #82Re: Should Presidential Candidates have to handwrite Constitution before taking offic
I do. Creationism, and even ID, is one religion's story creationism. To teach that as fact is, in my opinion, a blatant support for that religion. I have no problem with teaching it in history class or a world religions class.
The Right seems to agree with me (and actually go further, since this was a history class) when the religion in question is Islam.
Wellesley pupils’ prayers at mosque fuel call for policy change - The Boston Globe
Wellesley, Massachusetts public school students taken to Saudi funded Mosque and learn to pray to Allah for “field trip” | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
Ah, ok now I remember that guy. He got worked up (as did much of the country on both sides of the aisle) about the Ten Commandments in front of the Courthouse where he presided. If I am not mistaken though, there have been Ten Commandment (and other religious artifacts) in various government owned (or publicly owned if you prefer) edifices since the country was founded. I don't see that as "government sponsoring any religion" though. In many (if not most) cases, where religious symbols were present there were actual historical reasons (or attachments) for them to be there. Not too mention the fact that the overwhelming majority of the country still considers itself religious, and of those who hold religious beliefs in this country, the largest subset is denominational Christian and so there were,largely, no societal issues with having those artifacts present. The demographic of the country is changing to be sure and so Christian is slightly less prevalent today, but still the majority.
But, their simple presence does not, in any way shape or form, mean that the US Government is telling you what, or how, to believe. I found it humorous back then, as I do now, that people will pick and choose what to argue over (with no sense of scope or context). No one got up in arms until the big monument went up outside. He had a smaller wall hung version in the courthouse for quite some time without people batting an eye (or at least not making a fuss). He wasn't, to my knowledge, asked to take that one down. It was the big one outside. He disagreed. He lost. The monument was removed. Moving on?
Sigh - who is Palin now again? Politically, I hope that she's washed up. Thankfully, she and McCain were not elected. She's attached herself to the Tea Party movement in a very "leech-ing" way IMO to stay politically relevant. Her statement is not well thought out and fairly ignorant. You know as well as I do why the founders left that kind of language out of the Constitution. They wanted nothing to do with a State Religion, a la Anglican Church, or the Holy Roman Empire etc etc. Theologically driven government is not a good idea. Mainly because theologies are fractious and exclusionary at their core (some malignantly so, others not so much). Either way, Palin marginalizes herself more everyday. I'd not worry about it too much.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks