Religious Right setting textbook standards

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Exactly. The pride and arrogance required to disregard the professionals is mind blowing.

Well, if the professionals are evolutionists, they should be ignored because they are teaching our children lies. 😏

Originally posted by kd2acz
IMO the constitution is under attack. Recently in California gay marriage was rejected by the voting populace but the will of the people is still being rejected. I am not sure what the current status is but what the people want does not matter in California with regard to this issue, the voice of a few should not rule the majority... in this case or any oth ...[text shortened]... . When we change this fundamental principle of our constitution, we are going to have problems.

It seems you don't understand what a constitutional democracy is all about. The sole purpose of the constitution is to protect against the problems of democracy.
The constitution for example enshrines certain rights thus protecting against discrimination (which pure democracy can result in).
In general, democracy fails when people vote on an issue that affects only a minority of which they are not part - or even when it disproportionately affects a minority.
The issue of gay marriage should be settled as a rights issue based on the constitution and should never have been put to the vote.
I have a similar opinion regarding immigration and citizen ship. I do not believe the rights of a foreign national residing in a country should be decided via democracy, but should instead be enshrined in the constitution. In fact I believe that if someone resides in a country continuously for 5 years they should automatically be granted citizenship with all its attendant rights.
In other cases, I believe the constitution (or laws perhaps?) have gone too far in restricting democracy. For example the rule that someone standing for president must have been born in the country, seems to me to be unreasonable. I believe the president should be decided democratically and whoever the people vote for, should be allowed.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It seems you don't understand what a constitutional democracy is all about. The sole purpose of the constitution is to protect against the problems of democracy.
The constitution for example enshrines certain rights thus protecting against discrimination (which pure democracy can result in).
In general, democracy fails when people vote on an issue that ...[text shortened]... president should be decided democratically and whoever the people vote for, should be allowed.

What you believe does not matter in America. 😏

Originally posted by Suzianne
I was in the process of editing my original post about this when it cut me off and kept me from editing after the deadline for edits.

Here is the amended version:

I'll go take a peek at this.

I live in Arizona, which is badly at risk for such thinking.

Edit: I just saw this video, and it highlights the importance of paying attention to just who ...[text shortened]... in the future. As proven by the video, it does absolutely no favors for the children of Texas.

It appears that neither you or ToO understand what the "separation of church and state" really means.

Originally posted by RJHinds
What you believe does not matter in America. 😏

So you have true separation of Church and State? Or do you mean my opinions in particular have no influence? If the former, then you are outright wrong. If the later, then you are wrong again. What I say on this forum is read by people in the US and it does have an impact. If you are referring to voting rights, then I am not convinced that you have much of an influence either.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you have true separation of Church and State? Or do you mean my opinions in particular have no influence? If the former, then you are outright wrong. If the later, then you are wrong again. What I say on this forum is read by people in the US and it does have an impact. If you are referring to voting rights, then I am not convinced that you have much of an influence either.

There was no intention by the American founding fathers to have separation of Church and State. Their intention was to have freedom of the Christian religion only, without restrictions from any particular denomination of Christianity. This was self-evident to them, but not to the many numbnuts of today. 😏

Originally posted by kd2acz
Hmmm, thought I did answer your question... in any event matters not to me if you don't want to dialog. I'm good, I just think there is more at stake in the video than meets the eye tis all.

Please show me where you addressed these points/questions:

Exactly how do you see this issue as the constitution being under attack?

Do you really not understand the constitution at all? If it were truly about "voting and winning by the majority", then women and minorities probably would have never been given the vote no less other rights. But then, perhaps you see those as "problems"?

Insofar as I could tell, you didn't address them at all. So why do you pretend that you did?

Originally posted by kd2acz
This is a chronic problem throughout the local, state and federal governments it is so commonplace it is merely 'accepted' as the norm.
Do you Suzianne, think communities should have the ability to govern for themselves and make decisions that affect their lives no matter how they see it?

I think a community's "right" to govern themselves and make decisions that affect their lives is one thing. When your decision will affect many tens of millions of kids throughout the US, then there's a problem. I would want my kids to have an up-to-date education with the best knowledge available to the sciences and to have a good firm grounding in scientific knowledge (instead of fantasy) when they finish school. The fact remains that schools in Texas, California, and to some extent New York are held up as a standard throughout the country (in the case of Texas, I would say held hostage) because the textbook-buying decisions of these states are very often copied throughout the US. I would not want my kid in Massachusetts forced to learn about ridiculous Young Earth Creationist theory just because some idiot state education board member in Texas thinks it represents actual science.

tl;dr version: Basically, their right to govern themselves ends when it negatively affects me or my kids in another state.

(Also, I live in Arizona. A state that is primarily conservative and Republican. Lots of decisions are made in this state every year which are stupid, careless and irresponsible, in my opinion. Oh how I wish the federal government would step in so that I can have responsible legislation affecting my life for a change instead of the foolish local conservative Republican Party platform. Why must I suffer just because I am surrounded by idiots?)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It appears that neither you or ToO understand what the "separation of church and state" really means.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There was no intention by the American founding fathers to have separation of Church and State. Their intention was to have freedom of the Christian religion only, without restrictions from any particular den ...[text shortened]... on of Christianity. This was self-evident to them, but not to the many numbnuts of today. 😏

But the state politicians, the Texas Board of Education members, do in fact prefer ONE religion over all others, i.e. Christianity. This is evident in their daily communal prayer when to a man, they pray "in the name of the Son, Jesus Christ". If prayer were offered by ALL religions, even just if only Judaism and Islam were represented, I'd be happy, since if that were the law, then no doubt they wouldn't offer ANY prayer before their meetings. Religion has NO place in the affairs of State, and State affairs have no place in Worship. I'll go to church or pray in silence when I want to pray, thanks very much. What we do NOT need is the board members of the Texas Board of Education grandstanding with their Christian prayers. Those who do so are not following Jesus' example of prayer at all. The only purpose of it is to declare "Tea-Party 'Values' Take Precedence Here".

There is also a Texas state flag in the room. This shows that the meeting is to further the State's business. By giving a Christian prayer (and ONLY a Christian prayer) shows that the meeting is also to further the ideas of ONE religion. Seems like this violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to me.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There was no intention by the American founding fathers to have separation of Church and State. Their intention was to have freedom of the Christian religion only, without restrictions from any particular denomination of Christianity. This was self-evident to them, but not to the many numbnuts of today. 😏

From Wikipedia:

"Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.

Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply against the states). However, it was not until the middle to late twentieth century that the Supreme Court began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by the states. In the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.""






I would watch whom you call "numbnuts". I have a far different opinion of to whom that phrase would apply.

Originally posted by Suzianne
From Wikipedia:

"Originally, the First Amendment applied only to the federal government. A number of the states effectively had established churches when the First Amendment was ratified, with some remaining into the early nineteenth century.

Subsequently, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) incorporated the Establishment Clause (i.e., made it apply ...[text shortened]... m you call "numbnuts". I have a far different opinion of to whom that phrase would apply.

If the shoe fits..... 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the shoe fits..... 😏

Indeed. In fact, I (and many others) have seen you wearing this shoe on most occasions already. So it does more than fit you. It must be extremely comfortable to you.

"And I was just thinking: as much as I really admire your shoes, and as much as I'd love to have a pair just like them, I really wouldn't want to be IN your shoes at this particular time and place." -- C.D. Bales, as played by Steve Martin, Roxanne, 1987