From events on the Republican candidates' debate -
WASHINGTON (CNN ) -- When asked to raise their hands if they don't believe in evolution, Sen. Sam Brownback, Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Tom Tancredo all said they do not.

Isn't that the same as saying raise your hand if you've never taken biology or any kind of earth science?

That's a religious issue as far as I'm concerned, because the only thing which blinds people to the fact of evolution (aside from being undereducated) is when their religious beliefs get in the way. I don't see what any of that has to do with running for public office. It's like saying raise your hand if you don't believe in Jesus. The question is irrelevant (unless maybe you're at church), and has no place in a political debate. Remember 'seperation of church and state' is fundamental.

Valor, your assumed naïveté on this subject is absurd. Everyone who has not been living in a cardboard box for the last fifty years knows that it is the stated goal of the religious right to have the teaching of evolution in the biology classes of all state-funded schools including universities gutted by the introduction of the religiously-grounded theory of 'intelligent design'. It is a very, very political issue.

I don't see where separation of church and state has anything to do with a televised political debate. Asking the candidates whether or not they believe the sun revolves around the earth, or whether they believe in global warming, etc. can be very revealing and certainly the responses can gain points with some voters and lose some with others. Once again,Val, this seems an inappropriate place to invoke the constitution. I sure as hell wouldn't vote for either of those three stalwarts!

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
It is a very, very political issue.

But it shouldn't be. Why on earth do we allow government officials to squabble over anything of a religious nature? Doesn't this ring a bell? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Religious matters, including Intelligent Design, should remain a personal matter rooted in the home. Evolution, however, has a scientific basis and absolutely belongs in schools.

quote:

Why on earth do we allow government officials to squabble over anything of a religious nature?

Because that's what government officials DO! Squabble over everything and anything. The constitution guarantees them that right, it should, ideally, deny them MAKING and/or ENFORCING any laws that violate that freedom OF or FROM religion.

Valor says, "But it shouldn't be [a political issue]. Why on earth do we allow government officials to squabble over anything of a religious nature? Doesn't this ring a bell? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Religious matters, including Intelligent Design, should remain a personal matter rooted in the home. Evolution, however, has a scientific basis and absolutely belongs in schools."

Well, yeah. But what do you do when you discover that special interest groups are trying to evade this founding principle?

It would have been interesting to hear how the three of them define evolution.

quote:

Originally posted by frankvan:
I sure as hell wouldn't vote for either of those three stalwarts!

I believe that the majority of the US population feels the same way, including formerly 'on the fence' Republicans.

The Republican candidates are wasting their time and money even running this term because there's no way in Jersey that we'll have a Republican president this time around, IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
But what do you do when you discover that special interest groups are trying to evade this founding principle?

We have a discussion like this.

quote:

The Republican candidates are wasting their time and money even running this term because there's no way in Jersey that we'll have a Republican president this time around, IMO.

Not sure when NJ last went Republican in a presidential election. Maybe Reagan. On a national level, it's too early to tell; depends on the candidates. The Dems are not immune from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sorry you didn't catch that juan. I was using 'Jersey' as a pseudonym for perhaps a slightly less popular place.

quote:

Originally posted by Kendor:
Sorry you didn't catch that juan. I was using 'Jersey' as a pseudonym for perhaps a slightly less popular place.

I should have caught that, bearing in mind what NYers think of Joisey.

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
Valor, your assumed naïveté on this subject is absurd. Everyone who has not been living in a cardboard box for the last fifty years knows that it is the stated goal of the religious right to have the teaching of evolution in the biology classes of all state-funded schools including universities gutted by the introduction of the religiously-grounded theory of 'intelligent design'. It is a very, very political issue.

No doubt the religious right would also love to see all our schools having our children read from the Bible, as well (has flashbacks of Little House on the Prairie). Doesn't mean it should or is going to happen! No more so than forcing them to read from the Koran, or to learn a religiously based pseudo-science!
Regardless of whether it's a popular issue or whether it's one which you advocate, it doesn't change a thing. It's a religious issue, and has no place in a political debate, much less our public education system.

quote:

Originally posted by Valor D:
It's a religious issue, and has no place in a political debate, much less our public education system.

No it shouldn't, but it does, because we elect politicians who want to change things based on their own ideas of religion, science and evolutionary theory.
It really is naive to think that the personal views of these three people will not come into play when decisions regarding school curriculums are made.
Don't you think that people run for office because they feel strongly enough about a particular issue, that they can bring about change? The question is not irrelevant.

quote:

Originally posted by Valor D:

Regardless of whether it's a popular issue or whether it's one which you advocate, it doesn't change a thing. It's a religious issue, and has no place in a political debate, much less our public education system.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Hi Val:

I'm with you on this one.

Notice how the Libs always use the 'Separation of church and state" argument when it supports their point of view...

but ignore it when it doesn't fit with their argument???

I believe that the Evolution question was proposed by moderator Chris Matthews who is a very biased Liberal commentator.

I try to listen to his show on a daily basis and Matthews hates Bush and most Republicans and Conservatives with a passion.

He makes little attempt to hide his venom on his show.

But what else could you expect of MSNBC ???

hippolips

quote:

Regardless of whether it's a popular issue or whether it's one which you advocate, it doesn't change a thing. It's a religious issue, and has no place in a political debate,

Where are religious issues, that may or may not conflict with the constitution, to be debated then? Only by disinterested parties? Why were the other seven guys (Libs ?) careful not to raise their hands ?

Whether species evolved or were created is an issue between science and religion, and cannot be legislated; therefore the issue has no place in a legislature.

Whether creationism should be taught in the public schools as science is a political issue.

So a candidate's position on evolution/creationism is politically significant if his character is such that he may vote as his church demands instead of doing what his duty demands: support the principle of separation of church and state.

We need to understand the character of a candidate so that we may assess the likelihood that he will do his duty if elected.

quote:

Originally posted by hippolips:

quote:

Originally posted by Valor D:

Regardless of whether it's a popular issue or whether it's one which you advocate, it doesn't change a thing. It's a religious issue, and has no place in a political debate, much less our public education system.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Hi Val:

I'm with you on this one.

Notice how the Libs always use the 'Separation of church and state" argument when it supports their point of view...

but ignore it when it doesn't fit with their argument???

I believe that the Evolution question was proposed by moderator Chris Matthews who is a very biased Liberal commentator.

I try to listen to his show on a daily basis and Matthews hates Bush and most Republicans and Conservatives with a passion.

He makes little attempt to hide his venom on his show.

But what else could you expect of MSNBC ???

hippolips

Well, being a "Liberal" myself, I can't honestly relate to your statement. I am just a firm believer in Jefferson's doctrine of "seperation of church and state", and believe that they should remain seperate. I was forced to attend a perochial school for a few years growing up, and believe me when I tell you they emphasize their religious views in every aspect of the curriculum. Even science class skipped right over evolution in our textbooks as though it was something bad. That is not education. That's more like Sunday School. And, not something I would like to see happen to the public schools. Besides, if you give into the Christian religious-right, then that is discriminating against the students who are not Christian. Although the religious-right would tell you that everyone should be taught Christian beliefs anyway, that simply does not abide by the U.S. Constitution guarantee of freedom of religion and right against persecution. Every religion in the world is represented in the U.S.A., "the melting pot". And, likewise, all must be treated equally. But, they have no place being taught in our public schools. That's what church, sunday school, and perochial schools are for.

And, should any politican be dumb enough to try and pass this "intelligent design" religiously based pseudo-science into Law, then they must be removed from office. The First Amendment has precendent.

That's not being naive. That's only being Logical. You can't hold a politician's religious beliefs against them any more than you should use it in their favor. None of that has any bearing on their capability to hold a public office. No more so than the color of their skin, gender, physical handicap, or sexual orientation. That's only right, like it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by babthrower:
Whether species evolved or were created is an issue between science and religion, and cannot be legislated; therefore the issue has no place in a legislature.

Can't both be true? I never understood why people feel that they have to 'choose' between their faith and science. Who says they can't both be true?

quote:

Whether creationism should be taught in the public schools as science is a political issue.

Seems as though you're contradicting yourself with your first and second statement.

"Creationism" is not science, by the way. It's a story from the book of Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible. And, it's no more 'scientific' than Greek or Roman Mythology.