Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on February 24, 2009, 10:30:25 PM
-
I don't know much about Jindal. Don't even know how to spell his name.
But I hear he's a real-deal conservative, his ethnicity will play well, and I thought it a very hopeful sign that he is the one currently rebutting Obama's speech.
But then I had to turn off the speech, about thirty seconds in. Someone had better teach that guy how to speak, and fast. That's the sort of sing-songy voice I hear in bad commercials. Ick.
-
OK, OK, I tuned in just before the end, and he sounded much better. He must have been nervous. I think this is his first big show in front of a national audience.
And, he probably made the mistake of getting coaching to overcome his southern accent. (Or at least I thought he used to have one.) Huge mistake. Americans would just love seeing an Indian-American with such a good-ole-boy dialect.
-
His delivery was bad, his speech was poorly written, the production quality was poor, and he looked green and sickly on camera. Obama outclassed him by a mile, and that's a huge problem.
Next time let Sarah give the opposition view
-
He seemed very uncomfortable from the get go.
The response to Jindal's response by the news channels was the most sickening display of the current inobjectivity of the press corps.
-
I guess I just don't share the Palin love. Maybe she wasn't fully bought in on McCain's message, but she never seemed comfortable the entire campaign....she was like a walking, talking, talking-point.
-
I guess I just don't share the Palin love. Maybe she wasn't fully bought in on McCain's message, but she never seemed comfortable the entire campaign....she was like a walking, talking, talking-point.
She could deliver a talking point, and that's the whole point of the exercise. Jindal failed miserably to deliver a message.
But if you don't like Palin, then pick any other prominent conservative or Republican personality. I figure just about anyone could have done better.
-
Mark Sanford seems a better speaker. Also, there's the obvious - Palin.
-
Ms. MillCreek and I thought the boat story was kind of contrived.
-
We need better communicators, that's for sure, but if it's just going to be about empty "soaring rhetoric" we are clearly at a permanent disadvantage. We are not going to out-Candyman the Candyman.
-
Governor Jindal's shot is 4 year away. I think that's plenty of time to overcome speaking issues. The important thing is he is the real deal when it comes to ideas. We wouldn't be selling out if we nominated him. And I think 4 year from now this nation, it we're lucky, might realize that we're in the position to elect someone like Jindal to fix the mess we'll be in.
-
True dat. I just hope four years is enough to overcome the bad first impression he might have made on millions of people.
Not that anybody was watching, of course. :lol:
-
I think Jindal only looks good in comparison to the rest of the group we have to pick from.
Just Wikiing him reveals that he voted to make the Patriot Act permanent, was in favor of the Real ID Act, was in favor of the Military Commissions Act, supported a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning, and voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Other than that, I'd get along just fine with him. I stay out of abortion and teaching intelligent design debates so I won't focus on his stances on those two topics, I think he'd do good on the 2nd Amendment, I think he'd be apt to pursue alternative fuels while pissing off over-environmentalists, I think he'd come down a lot harder on criminals than anyone we've seen in a long time, and the rest feels like nitpicking considering Obama is running the country right now.
If he backed off the Patriot Act, Real ID Act, Military Commissions Act, Federal Marriage Amendment, and realized banning flag burning is a waste of a constitutional amendment, then he'd be a great candidate. As it stands, he's still probably the best candidate.
-
Yep, I too recall that Palin was generally excellent with the media.
-
Yep, I too recall that Palin was generally excellent with the media.
:laugh: I think what they're saying is, she gave a good speech. And she did give a good speech. =)
-
Yep, I too recall that Palin was generally excellent with the media.
Palin was able to speak coherently and was right on many issues. She was not as radical as I would have liked, but she was brave and principled enough to address AKIP meetings, and principled enough for the media to hate her.
Any principled conservative will be loathed by the media, and possibly by many GOP faithful, exactly because he is a principled conservative. To overcome the obstacle, he would need to be far more articulate and talented than a liberal in a similar position.
-
There was a discussion on Volokh a few days back on Jindal's views on creationism. The author thought that it will hurt his chances to be elected.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_22-2009_02_28.shtml#1235353513 (http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_02_22-2009_02_28.shtml#1235353513)
-
...oh for God's sake.
This is a complete non-issue. THe FedGov should be involved in education as little as possible (preferably NOT). As long as a candidate understands that, it's irrelevant what his beliefs on evolution are.
(And I still think Sanford and Palin > Jindal.)
-
I don't think Jindal is the the best candidate but I am fairly certain he would make a good President. It is true he has many shortcomings to overcome, probably chief of which is dismissal as the Right's Affirmative Action/Answer to Calls of Racism Candidate.
I am hesitant to push forward DeMint or Sanford as a candidate at this point. There is still plenty of time for disappointment...
-
The response to Jindal's response by the news channels was the most sickening display of the current inobjectivity of the press corps.
QFT - the lambasting he received from news commentators on the left strongly indicated that they're deathly afraid of this guy - not for what he is now, but for what he might be around 3 years from now.
I noticed that they seemed to steer clear of his message, and focus on his delivery.
Speaking of delivery, I was struck by Barack Hussein Obama's demeanor . . . several times, he leaned back, tilted his chin up, and had what looked like a frown or scowl on his face. When looking at the downturned corners of his mouth during these moments, I found myself thinking "Where have I seen that expression before???"
It took a moment or two to place it, and then it hit me like a bolt of lightning: I'd seen the exact facial expression in old newsreel footage of Il Duce, old Benito Mussolini himself. :O
-
Any principled conservative will be loathed by the media, and possibly by many GOP faithful
Agreed. I like the guy, but I have real concerns about his candidacy making it through the primary season.
-
Agreed. I like the guy, but I have real concerns about his candidacy making it through the primary season.
Well, just turn out and vote for him.
Primaries are all about voting for the guy you believe in.
-
I thought the speech was awful. It had an annoying sing-song delivery, and sounded like a first grade teacher lecturing his kids.
It also missed focusing on some points, and made some stupid points that will alienate anyone with sense.
For instance, right after he mentioned the funding for the maglev between Vegas and California, without mentioning that it was pork for a legislator's home district, he made fun of funding for "something called 'volcano monitoring'".
Um. Yes, Bobby, we know you hate science. You've made that point on a number of occasions. Apparently, being ignorant of it goes right along with that.
But the USGS is all that gave forewarning of Mt. St. Helens when it bulged before the eruption, a USGS geologist died while giving the warning that it was about to blow.
Volcano monitoring is essential to preserve the lives of millions of Americans.
That was an asinine thing to say, and it sounded absolutely ignorant. "Something called volcano monitoring." Good one. Of ALL THE THINGS TO PICK ON, pick on a viable and necessary cost.
Brilliant.
Stupid party, again.
-
Fire the speechwriter, keep the Jindal.
-
Fire the speechwriter, keep the Jindal.
Nope. I wouldn't vote for him. Too much of a theocrat for my taste.
I would like a conservative, not yet one more example of what Goldwater was dismayed that the Republicans had become.
He has even said that he thinks both evolution and "intelligent design" are wrong, and that he wants creationism taught in public schools.
Um. NO. Fail.
-
I'd rather have a small-government theocrat than a big-government secularist.
-
I'd rather have a small-government theocrat than a big-government secularist.
Government mandating the teaching of one particular belief system is pretty damned big government in a profound sense I don't ever want to see.
-
Government mandating the teaching of one particular belief system is pretty damned big government in a profound sense I don't ever want to see.
All government schooling does that. It's just some are more subtle than others.
-
All government schooling does that. It's just some are more subtle than others.
No.
What he is talking about is teaching, in schools, public schools, that the bible is to be taken literally and the world is only 6000 years old. Period.
-
1. I learned precisely that in government school. I turned out all right.
2. I don't see a big difference between that and some of the nonsense that's already in the history books.
-
Dogma is dogma, whether left-wing or right-wing. We don't need to run away from reason; in fact we dare not.
***
I was told last night by an Obama supporter that Obama has sex appeal and Jindal doesn't. Well, there go 20 million votes. :)
-
Did anybody catch the Chris Matthews perjorative, "Oh, God", just as Jindal walked to the podium? Nice unbiased reporter, that Matthews.
Listen to it here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/02/msnbc_oh_god.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/02/msnbc_oh_god.html)
-
Did anybody catch the Chris Matthews perjorative, "Oh, God", just as Jindal walked to the podium? Nice unbiased reporter, that Matthews.
Listen to it here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/02/msnbc_oh_god.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/02/msnbc_oh_god.html)
Everyone knows Matthews is a groveling piece of excrement and a total Obot.
Though as for "oh god", I said the same when Jindal ignored things like ACORN and took a swipe at the USGS.
-
Nope. I wouldn't vote for him. Too much of a theocrat for my taste.
I would like a conservative, not yet one more example of what Goldwater was dismayed that the Republicans had become.
He has even said that he thinks both evolution and "intelligent design" are wrong, and that he wants creationism taught in public schools.
Um. NO. Fail.
Oh noes! Scary religions stuffs! Run! Scream! Hide!
If you're going to rule out anyone who has a whiff of religious belief, then you'd better resign yourself to never having a conservative majority. Ever. This knee-jerk rejection of the Christian right is idiotic.
-
No.
What he is talking about is teaching, in schools, public schools, that the bible is to be taken literally and the world is only 6000 years old. Period.
Going to need a quote on that claim since I haven't been able to find anything myself. All I've seen is that Jindal believes in creationism if defined as "creation needs a creator". As far as opposition to ID/evolution, only thing I've seen there is that he opposed both teaching only evolution and teaching only ID.
Oddly enough, he would be contradicting current the Roman Catholic position on evolution if he did take that stance. The Church does allow for the possibility that evolution happened in a manner consistent with the will of God, and both Ratzinger and JPII support/supported evolution over ID/creationism.
-
Oh noes! Scary religions stuffs! Run! Scream! Hide!
If you're going to rule out anyone who has a whiff of religious belief, then you'd better resign yourself to never having a conservative majority. Ever. This knee-jerk rejection of the Christian right is idiotic.
I don't object to their religion I object to their religion being taught to my children by government edict.
-
And now the Jindal Derangement Syndrome begins. NO WAY IN &^%$ WILL PRESIDENT JINDAL EVER HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE YOUR KIDS STUDY GENESIS IN SCIENCE CLASS. What on Earth are you people smoking?
-
What on Earth are you people smoking?
The material that has been fed them by their years in publick skoolz.
-
And now the Jindal Derangement Syndrome begins. NO WAY IN &^%$ WILL PRESIDENT JINDAL EVER HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE YOUR KIDS STUDY GENESIS IN SCIENCE CLASS. What on Earth are you people smoking?
You're right, but it still scares people. To them I say, don't worry. Bush was America's first Theocrat (after the Puritans) and ID/Creationism is not being taught in public schools.
Will his statements cause him to be slaughtered in the media? Yes. Will be backpedal to a more moderate/non-substantive position? Yes.
I predict a situation similar to when GW visited BJU in 2000. Lots of negative coverage followed by a mitigating statement--"its a bigoted school"--in order to appease the Kingmakers.
-
I was told last night by an Obama supporter that Obama has sex appeal and Jindal doesn't. Well, there go 20 million votes. :)
How shallow some people are simply amazes me, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Stuff like that makes me in favor of some kind of testing to qualify people to vote, but then that wouldn't be Constitutional.
I need to go and lower my blood pressure now.
-
Bush was not a Theocrat. Bush was an opportunist, who used Theocracy (gay marriage) to get reelected.
-
Oh noes! Scary religions stuffs! Run! Scream! Hide!
If you're going to rule out anyone who has a whiff of religious belief, then you'd better resign yourself to never having a conservative majority. Ever. This knee-jerk rejection of the Christian right is idiotic.
You know quite well that isn't what I said, but hey, nice strawman!
Having religion? Fine.
Mandating religious beliefs in public schools as indoctrination? Hell no. This isn't Iran.
-
You know quite well that isn't what I said, but hey, nice strawman!
Having religion? Fine.
Mandating religious beliefs in public schools as indoctrination? Hell no. This isn't Iran.
"Mandating belief" has a particular meaning that does not comport with what has occurred in Jindal's Louisiana.
-
"Mandating belief" has a particular meaning that does not comport with what has occurred in Jindal's Louisiana.
Okay. He's even said he would like creationism taught in schools.
Let's change things up. It's going to be mandated that kids in schools are going to be taught that Islam is the Light, and that the Koran is absolute.
Is that okay? No? Why? Because it's a different flavor of belief being pushed through public education?
Science is science. Religion is religion. If someone tries to establish a state religion in this manner, they are an enemy of the state.
I have ZERO tolerance for theocrats. Of any type.
Also, what has occurred in Jindal's state, then? What brought this reaction?
No Thanks, New Orleans
SICB President Rich Satterlie informed Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal that the SICB will not come to New Orleans for the 2011 annual meeting because of the state law that undermines science education and attacks teaching evolution
http://www.sicb.org/ (http://www.sicb.org/)
-
You know quite well that isn't what I said, but hey, nice strawman!
Having religion? Fine.
Mandating religious beliefs in public schools as indoctrination? Hell no. This isn't Iran.
Strawman? Me? You're the one who says Jindal wants to indoctrinate students with creationism. Pot, meet the kettle.
Jindal supports free choice in education. He wants his children to be able to learn intelligent design in school. That's his choice, and it's a choice a lot of other parents would like to have, too. As it is now, the only doctrine the public schools teach is secular collectivism.
The best way to achieve free choice in schools is through school vouchers and magnet schools, both of which Jindal strongly supports.
Barring that, the next best thing would be to have multiple opposing views taught side by side in the public schools. This is also something Jindal supports. He wants intelligent design taught alongside evolution so that students are exposed to multiple views, allowing them to make an informed decision on their own. This accommodates those who want to learn evolution as well as those who want to learn some alternatives, and it leads to a much more robust education for the students.
But hey, feel free to twist this into rants about theocracy and Iran and whatever else.
-
Jindal supports free choice in education. He wants his children to be able to learn intelligent design in school. That's his choice, and it's a choice a lot of other parents would like to have, too. As it is now, the only doctrine the public schools teach is collectivism.
Bullsh__. Unmitigated bullsh__.
Even the Catholic Church rejects ID as a bunch of phony nonsense. It's "Because we said so" cloaked in pseudoscience terms that are laughable to anyone who's actually had a single science course.
When people pray and think, they're fine. ID people start praying and stop thinking. ID people have no concept of time, of the passage of time, the scale of time, of how genetic traits work...and they REVEL in their ignorance.
It isn't science. It isn't anything. It's exactly like "Global Warming", only with even less but fluff and nonsense to back it up. And any schoolboard member, any politician who supports that crap needs to be thrown out on their ass yesterday.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
-
Bush was not a Theocrat. Bush was an opportunist, who used Theocracy (gay marriage) to get reelected.
And that makes Jindal different how? He's making the same noises. Granted they're about 2 years too early, but still...
-
Maned, Is this your one issue or something? Of all the BS to get up in arms about, that has got to be the most minor. If he is a conservative, then he wouldn't be in favor of the Feds mandating any of that anyway.
On the education topic alone, if the only part of my future children's education I am worried about is creation/evolution/ID, then I think I will be pretty happy about it. That is easily to prepared for and easily dealt with at home. In my high school, we learned about evolution. Our teacher mentioned the creation belief, but didn't spend much or any time on it. Just about 100% of the students in my class already had preconceived beliefs about it anyway so it didn't matter.
-
When people pray and think, they're fine. ID people start praying and stop thinking. ID people have no concept of time, of the passage of time, the scale of time, of how genetic traits work...and they REVEL in their ignorance.
This is a false dichotomy that has been perpetuated since the advent of Darwin.
To answer your question, more and more scientists are accepting ID as a plausible solution because they acknowledge the level of complexity in nature is too high to deny a Designer. Even Discover magazine sent an article to press that essentially admitted, "unless our Multiverse theory works, there has to be a God." And the multiverse is far from proven. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
Once you take the arguments beyond evolutionary biology and into physics denial gets a lot harder.
-
I'm having a hard time understanding how some of you are getting "I want the Bible to be literally taught in every school" out of a simple "this is what I personally believe". You're all so afraid of someone with religious beliefs that you assume they are going to force that on people, with zero proof that he has any intention on doing so. And the fact is, Christians make up a large part of conservatism. Warring with such a large portion of your own party is going to assure yet another loss. And Manedwolf, your insults towards people who have different beliefs than you makes you sound a lot more like the emotion-driven Leftists you despise.
-
This is a false dichotomy that has been perpetuated since the advent of Darwin.
To answer your question, more and more scientists are accepting ID as a plausible solution because they acknowledge the level of complexity in nature is too high to deny a Designer. Even Discover magazine sent an article to press that essentially admitted, "unless our Multiverse theory works, there has to be a God." And the multiverse is far from proven. http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
Once you take the arguments beyond evolutionary biology and into physics denial gets a lot harder.
That is the problem. No one knows what happened. Evolution is just one of the better 100% non-religious theories. It has it's problems also. A guy on another site works with genetic microbiology stuff and he thinks the whole idea of species and all that will change down the road changing a lot of these arguments.
-
That is the problem. No one knows what happened.
The problem is the Darwin Dogmatists continue to insist that "we don't know what happened, but despite the apparent design in our universe, it couldn't possibly have been intentional."
-
Bullsh__. Unmitigated bullsh__.
Even the Catholic Church rejects ID as a bunch of phony nonsense. It's "Because we said so" cloaked in pseudoscience terms that are laughable to anyone who's actually had a single science course.
When people pray and think, they're fine. ID people start praying and stop thinking. ID people have no concept of time, of the passage of time, the scale of time, of how genetic traits work...and they REVEL in their ignorance.
It isn't science. It isn't anything. It's exactly like "Global Warming", only with even less but fluff and nonsense to back it up. And any schoolboard member, any politician who supports that crap needs to be thrown out on their ass yesterday.
Your disagreement with intelligent design is duly noted. Now, let's set aside the zeal and red herrings and get back to the point.
The issue is whether parents should have a choice about what kind of schools their children go to, and what kinds of curricula are taught there. There are various ways to achieve more free choice in schooling, such as charter schools, vouchers, and the like. If you can't have multiple school/curricula choices, if you can only have one school system that teaches only one curriculum, then the nearest alternative is to tailor that one curriculum to present multiple viewpoints side by side.
So the question is this: is a free choice school system a better policy or a worse policy compared to the single viewpoint school system we have now? Jindal prefers the free choice models. Is he wrong to do so?
I think Jindal is dead right on this one. Free choice in schooling can be nothing but a good thing. Even if some parents choose a curriculum that I disagree with, I still think we're all better off for having the choice.
-
What would be even better is if he dismantled the DoE. Would that be too much to hope for?
-
What would be even better is if he dismantled the DoE. Would that be too much to hope for?
Yes, that would be too much to hope for.
-
How is offering multiple viewpoints for consideration an infringement of freedom, and rigidly insisting "This belief system (secular evolution) is the only possible truth" be forced on all children freedom? Oh right, because you happen to believe in what is mandated.
When I want equal time for my viewpoint, that's evil and forcing my view down your throat. When you insist only your belief system be acknolwedged as a possibility, that's A-ok because you know you're right. Good logic. ;/ Wouldn't want to confuse kids in school by teaching them to examine alternative viewpoints on controversial issues. They might have to actually think for themselves!
-
He has even said that he thinks both evolution and "intelligent design" are wrong, and that he wants creationism taught in public schools.
Heard the name Jindal...
Didn't know much about him...
But if the above is TRUE it is all I need to know about him to:
JUST SAY NO TO JINDAL!
-
Heard the name Jindal...
Didn't know much about him...
But if the above is TRUE it is all I need to know about him to:
JUST SAY NO TO JINDAL!
Or you could take a moment to learn something about Jindal and what he stands for, then make an informed decision.
-
How is offering multiple viewpoints for consideration an infringement of freedom, and rigidly insisting "This belief system (secular evolution) is the only possible truth" be forced on all children freedom? Oh right, because you happen to believe in what is mandated.
When I want equal time for my viewpoint, that's evil and forcing my view down your throat. When you insist only your belief system be acknolwedged as a possibility, that's A-ok because you know you're right. Good logic. ;/ Wouldn't want to confuse kids in school by teaching them to examine alternative viewpoints on controversial issues. They might have to actually think for themselves!
How many "alternate truths" are we going to allow? The earth is a disk on a turtle? Ocean lady shook all the animals of the sea out of her hair?
You don't get to say "I just want alternatives taught so kids can think for themselves" if the only alternative you want taught is yours. Pot meet kettle.
The Republican candidates could take this issue out of the hands of the Dems, without promoting secular humanism or godless communism or whatever other bugbear, by simply making it clear that:
"I believe, as do millions of people in this country in "X", however, I believe that no religiously-based viewpoint should be given preference in our schools and will not push for nor support any such effort on a national level.
Parents are free to instruct their children however they wish, and it is the duty of teachers to not denigrate those teachings. What is taught in science classes should be determined by the people whose children it effects, the local voters and their state and local school boards and departments of education.
Boom. Consistant state's rights, small government, tolerance and freedom of choice, all without giving the opposition a hook to paint one as an "anti-science theocrat".
-
Carebear: there are two possible models for the origin of the universe. It happened utterly by itself, or it was in some way created. IF I was talking about teaching the Christian creation account your point would be valid. As I'm not (nor is any serious ID proponent I know of) that is a strawman of the first order.
-
How many "alternate truths" are we going to allow? The earth is a disk on a turtle? Ocean lady shook all the animals of the sea out of her hair?
You don't get to say "I just want alternatives taught so kids can think for themselves" if the only alternative you want taught is yours. Pot meet kettle.
Wait, what?
Who wants to teach that the earth is a disk on a turtle?
Who wants the only alternative taught to be their own? Other than Maned, that is...?
Perhaps you misunderstood. The whole point of the exercise is to give people choices about what is being taught to their children. It's about NOT forcing any particular ideology (be it creationism, or Darwinism, or whatever else) onto students.
-
Carebear: there are two possible models for the origin of the universe. It happened utterly by itself, or it was in some way created. IF I was talking about teching the Christian creation account your point would be valid. As I'm not (nor is any serious I'd proponent I know of) that is a strawman of the first order.
My mistake.
Doesn't affect the larger point though. How do we determine what or how many alternatives get actually taught and how much time does that leave for any one of them to be taught in the detail necessary for schoolchildren to learn anything at all about them?
Open the door to one alternative that is even remotely religiously based, and I'm unaware of more than a couple variations of creation and development that aren't at root patently religious, and you have opened the door to all of them. There isn't enough time in a science class to cover them all.
Wait a minute, not my mistake at all. You can't just say "teach alternatives" and then accuse me of straw-manning when I point out how many alternatives there are for any "creation" story.
-
Furthermore, note what I actually wrote...
"I believe, as do millions of people in this country in "X", however, I believe that no religiously-based viewpoint should be given preference in our schools and will not push for nor support any such effort on a national level.
Parents are free to instruct their children however they wish, and it is the duty of teachers to not denigrate those teachings. What is taught in science classes should be determined by the people whose children it effects, the local voters and their state and local school boards and departments of education."
Boom. Consistant state's rights, small government, tolerance and freedom of choice, all without giving the opposition a hook to paint one as an "anti-science theocrat".
The elections that the Dems are hitting with their theocrat libel are the national ones. State that you intend to push the decisions out of the national level, other than to ensure that teachers are held accountable for not denigrating students beliefs, and the local schools can teach whatever they choose.
The Palin's and Jindal's are thus armored against "theocrat, 6,000 year old earth, hating science" accusations.
-
Carebear - allowing such things to be decided at local level has already been tried has it not.
The outcomes run something like this:
- Motivated group takes control of school board and pushes for their agenda
- Other local parents react badly
- It goes to court
- Science teachers take on Discovery Institute in court
- Everybody hates each other and blogs have a field day
Dover springs to mind.
-
Let the locals decide is a nice thought. So is abolishing the NFA, GCA, bad parts of the FOPA,and Bush Sr's import ban. Heck, let's repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the IRS and enforce the 10th Amendment while we're at it.
Or we could deal with the system we have in a realistic way.
-
Let the locals decide is a nice thought. So is abolishing the NFA, GCA, bad parts of the FOPA,and Bush Sr's import ban. Heck, let's repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the IRS and enforce the 10th Amendment while we're at it.
Or we could deal with the system we have in a realistic way.
Again, how "realistically" do you determine which alternatives of the thousands, religious and not, available in our pluralistic society are going to be allowed to be taught as "alternatives"?
And the larger thread is about Jindal and as it evolved :lol: into his (and other national level GOP candidates) electability given his stated beliefs on ID being taught. My point was more narrowly tailored to how to "theocrat-proof" his beliefs in the press.
-
What "thousands of alternatives" are you talking about? ID is not based in any specific creation account. It is merely the view that there was a "uncaused causer" as Lewis put it. The nature or form of that causer is where the alternatives come in, and has nothing to do with ID as proposed. So yeah, it is a strawman, and it mainly showcases your ignorance about the subject you're attacking.
As for Jindal, I don't think the debate on ID is a particularly critical one at the national level, and I think it is best framed as a matter of giving parents options.
-
The problem lies in assuming that every single school in the country (or county, or town) must all agree on one particular viewpoint and teach only that. There is absolutely no reason why different schools can't teach different viewpoints. Let students and parents decide which schools to use based on what they teach there. This notion that all schools and all students must conform to the same ideologies is nonsense.
Parents shouldn't be forced to send their children into a school system that seeks to achieve uniformity and conformity, particularly when the target model to conform to isn't something they agree with.
Why should Bobby Jindal or anyone else be forced to use a school that indoctrinates things they don't agree with?
-
Is anyone seriously suggesting replacing evolution with ID in science lessons? Or are we talking about discussions of the origins of life in religious education? Or are we talking about science teachers being allowed to go off on one about 'religious zealots' or 'there are no transitory fossils' every now and again?
-
Is anyone seriously suggesting replacing evolution with ID in science lessons? Or are we talking about discussions of the origins of life in religious education? Or are we talking about science teachers being allowed to go off on one about 'religious zealots' or 'there are no transitory fossils' every now and again?
Nope. Merely presenting both without prejudice and allowing the students to make up their own mind.
-
I think that the problem with Jindal in this speech was how it was written. I think that Jindal is running into a wall here. Here in lil ole louisiana (where I live and he is my governor), he can say what he feels, and do what he feels is right. On a national level, the national GOP is going to try and tell him what he can and can't say, what opinions he can and can't express. I think he may have issues learning how to play the game their way. However, Jindal/Huckabee 2012!
On the ID, evolution, creation teaching in schools.
Well, We can either teach one belief, or we can teach multiple.
Lets say we decide to teach one belief...which do we go with? The 'scientific' non-religious one that has no actual scientific proof backing it up? Or one of the many religious types that also have no/very little scientific proof backing them up?
Ok, lets just teach the one with the most support......guess we get to teach creation then huh?
Lets teach multiple ones, well, how do we decided which ones? Should we start teaching our kids about the spaghetti monsters? Or should we take Greek mythology out of the literature classes and teach it as possible fact?
This is something that simply put has to be left up to the independant school districts, OR, better yet, left OUT of school altogether.
-
Nope. Merely presenting both without prejudice and allowing the students to make up their own mind.
Sorry, I have to laugh here. You are saying that we need to tell a teacher to present their own viewpoint (as chances are, their own beliefs will coincide with one of the major theories) and opposing viewpoints without showing any preferance from one to the other. You, friend, have way too much faith in people to be able to do that.
-
Sorry, I have to laugh here. You are saying that we need to tell a teacher to present their own viewpoint (as chances are, their own beliefs will coincide with one of the major theories) and opposing viewpoints without showing any preferance from one to the other. You, friend, have way too much faith in people to be able to do that.
It's not a perfect system. I hardly expect all (or even most) teachers to not betray their own bias. But the inevitability of personal bias from teachers is no excuse for institutional bias.
-
What "thousands of alternatives" are you talking about? ID is not based in any specific creation account. It is merely the view that there was a "uncaused causer" as Lewis put it. The nature or form of that causer is where the alternatives come in, and has nothing to do with ID as proposed. So yeah, it is a strawman, and it mainly showcases your ignorance about the subject you're attacking.
As for Jindal, I don't think the debate on ID is a particularly critical one at the national level, and I think it is best framed as a matter of giving parents options.
I am fully aware of what ID is.
It posits a creator or guiding force, the "intelligence" which can only be identified by its alleged perceptible effects on the natural world. You can't, with a straight face, say that positing the existence of a scientifically untestable and thus unprovable (ie supernatural) creator or guiding force is not explicitly a religiously-based creation alternative simply because you answer, "gee, I dunno" when asked to give that creator or force a name.
That is sophistry, perhaps not for you in particular, but for the ID movement as a whole in this country when it comes to education.
Trying to backdoor an unnamed god in in the name of science while simultaneously denying those who prefer to name their particular creator or force of choice is where the "pot calling the kettle" and thousands of alternatives that will demand equal time comes in.
-
Who said anything about thousands of alternatives all being taught? The idea is to teach the alternatives that parents want their children to learn, not every conceivable alternative anyone can ever think up.
-
I am fully aware of what ID is.
It posits a creator or guiding force, the "intelligence" which can only be identified by its alleged perceptible effects on the natural world. You can't, with a straight face, say that positing the existence of a scientifically untestable and thus unprovable (ie supernatural) creator or guiding force is not explicitly a religiously-based creation alternative simply because you answer, "gee, I dunno" when asked to give that creator or force a name.
That is sophistry, perhaps not for you in particular, but for the ID movement as a whole in this country when it comes to education.
Trying to backdoor an unnamed god in in the name of science while simultaneously denying those who prefer to name their particular creator or force of choice is where the "pot calling the kettle" and thousands of alternatives that will demand equal time comes in.
I read that and lol'ed. Show me the testing that proves the non-created origins of the universe theory. I'll wait....
-
Let the locals decide is a nice thought. So is abolishing the NFA, GCA, bad parts of the FOPA,and Bush Sr's import ban. Heck, let's repeal the 16th Amendment and abolish the IRS and enforce the 10th Amendment while we're at it.
Or we could deal with the system we have in a realistic way.
I'm reminded of the film "John Q" for some reason.
-
Who said anything about thousands of alternatives all being taught? The idea is to teach the alternatives that parents want their children to learn, not every conceivable alternative anyone can ever think up.
And if I want the theory of the flying spagetting monster taught in my school, because its what I teach my children at home?
Here in Northern Virginia, there are dozens of different religious facilities just in my zip code. I see bumper stickers with Pagan sayings, I see Darwin plaques on trucks, I see Cathloics and Jews and Buddhists and Mormons and who knows what else. That oughta keep a school district busy for a long, long time coming up with cirriculums to teach "alternatives".
:rolleyes:
Public school is no place to teach religion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the concepts of choice and freedom. But in public schools, only science and theory should be taught. And any teacher that teaches evolutionary theory as fact should be sanctioned.
-
And if I want the theory of the flying spagetting monster taught in my school, because its what I teach my children at home?
Here in Northern Virginia, there are dozens of different religious facilities just in my zip code. I see bumper stickers with Pagan sayings, I see Darwin plaques on trucks, I see Cathloics and Jews and Buddhists and Mormons and who knows what else. That oughta keep a school district busy for a long, long time coming up with cirriculums to teach "alternatives".
:rolleyes:
Public school is no place to teach religion.
I wholeheartedly agree with the concepts of choice and freedom. But in public schools, only science and theory should be taught. And any teacher that teaches evolutionary theory as fact should be sanctioned.
If enough other parents want the spaghetti monster to justify a school for them, then why shouldn't they have one?
We tend to forget who's supposed to be in charge here. Schools exist to serve the students. The parents and students should be the driving force. Schools should adapt to them and their wishes, not vice versa.
Also, I see no reason why government should have the power to compel people attend an institution that specifically requires them to be areligious. Seems to fail that whole "no prohibiting the free exercise" thing.
-
Also, I see no reason why government should have the power to compel people attend an institution that specifically requires them to be areligious. Seems to fail that whole "no prohibiting the free exercise" thing.
We certainly agree there.
-
Religion is an integral part of many people. Trying to exclude it, trying to separate it from them, causes problems like this mess with creation vs evolution in the schools.
Religion should be a part of schools, to exactly the same extent that religion is a part of the people in the schools. People should have a choice to attend an overtly religious school if they want, without penalty compared to somebody who wants to choose a purely secular school.
-
Or you could take a moment to learn something about Jindal and what he stands for, then make an informed decision.
If Jindal wants and stands for teaching Intelligent Design and Creationism in schools then that's all I need to know. I wouldn't vote him in as dog catcher let alone President of the United States.
I won't high jack the thread by getting into a discussion of the merits of either intelligent design or creationism and will just leave it at I vehemently disagree with both and neither has a place being taught in our schools...
-
If Jindal wants and stands for teaching Intelligent Design and Creationism in schools then that's all I need to know. I wouldn't vote him in as dog catcher let alone President of the United States.
I won't high jack the thread by getting into a discussion of the merits of either intelligent design or creationism and will just leave it at I vehemently disagree with both and neither has a place being taught in our schools...
Jindal wants his own children to have an opportunity to learn intelligent design. To that end, Jindal (and many, many other parents) stands for teaching intelligent design alongside evolution, and letting each theory stand on its own merits.
How on earth is that a problem? Truly, I don't get you evolution only fanatics. Why is religion such a threat to you?
Take it one step further. How can anyone justify the government forcing people to learn doctrines that are unproven and which conflict with their religion? Forcing people to learn only evolution is as bad as forcing people to learn only creationism.
-
Back to the important issues. If you're gonna have Jindal Derangement Syndrome, you need start using his middle name a LOT more often. According to Wikipedia, he doesn't have a middle name, other than his nickname, Bobby. So for the Jindal Derangers, just remember it's Piyush "Bobby" Jindal.
Or would that be racist or anti-Christian or something?
-
Jindal wants his own children to have an opportunity to learn intelligent design. To that end, Jindal (and many, many other parents) stands for teaching intelligent design alongside evolution, and letting each theory stand on its own merits.
Which is why the Wedge Strategy explicitly states that it wishes to do away with scientific materialism, or science as we know it. Without undermining those scientific principles that brought forth evolution then ID has no merits and cannot stand on its own next to evolution and other scientific theories.
Sure there are some rabidly anti-christian/religion types out there seeing ID as the front line. There are others who are concerned that teaching ID as a theory anywhere near on a par with evolution will seriously undermine educational standards (such as they are)
-
How on earth is that a problem? Truly, I don't get you evolution only fanatics. Why is religion such a threat to you?
It's not.
That said: Teaching ideas based on magical thinking with zero scientific basis has no place being taught in a public school simply because young minds are like sponges and generally incapable of seperating the dross from the gold. It makes unraveling the garbage they're taught even more difficult than it needs to be.
Want to teach creationism and intelligent degign in a private school - by all means do so. Those parents that want their children to learn alternative views of where man came from are welcome to vote with their dollars and send their kids to them.
But don't force the nonsense called creationism and intelligent design on my kids.
And don't bother spouting off about how evolution is just an unproven theory and creationism and intelligent design are reasonable alternatives. They are not and the only people that think they are, are the scientifically illiterate and/or don't/won't understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
-
See, as far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as ideologically unbiased educational content. This has never existed and will never exist. Such is the nature of man. And therefore ID emerges – as a marker issue. Obviously (at least to me) a school where ID is taught is a school where traditional monotheist values hold a bit more sway. And you know what? It is okay with me. It is natural that people want the public schools in their community to reflect their values.
Do I believe in ID? No, I don't. But do I think that believing in intelligent design makes you stupid? No, I don't.
Now, please understand here - I carry no portfolio for Christian values. But because I know that the schools are biased, I do not really care to withdraw my support for a politican because he disagrees with me regarding the content of education.
Which politician is more likely to support school vouchers or tax rebates for homeschoolers and parents take their children to private schools? That politician is a friend of liberty, no matter if he believes in Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti monster, or whatever.
Which politician is more likely to support a system of education wherein most of the schools are public, and the private schools re merely clones of the public ones, like in Europe? That man is an enemy of liberty.
Is it truly relevant whether the President thinks scientifically? You are not seeking a candidate for Chief Scientist. America – thanks God – does not have a Chief Scientist yet. You're looking for a candidate that will drive back the limitations of your liberty, even if a few inches. The argument of what schools teach is completely besides that point. So is the argument of whether or not the President loves science.
-
I read that and lol'ed. Show me the testing that proves the non-created origins of the universe theory. I'll wait....
There isn't any test, obviously, but there are sound theories, supported by the evidence available from after the creation, that can adequately explain the creation of the universe without the necessity (key word) of a creator.
Once you bring in any creator, named or unnamed, you have to allow ALL possible creator options, thus the thousands of options. The Federal government has no business picking and choosing, if anyone does it is the local school boards.
So that's the point, teach the current areligious theory of creation and evolution (if only to demonstrate the scientific method knowledge of which is sorely lacking in a lot of people) while making it clear that it is, thus far, a sufficient way to explain creation without needing to bring in anyone's religious or spiritual beliefs.
Make it clear that science, by definition, can only comment on the observable and testable, thus it can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any creator of anyone's choice. So the students are free, in a non-threatening way, to learn the one comprehensive non-religious option in school and can learn the religious option of their choice at home.
-
Once you bring in any creator, named or unnamed, you have to allow ALL possible creator options, thus the thousands of options. The Federal government has no business picking and choosing, if anyone does it is the local school boards.
Unmitigated poppycock. ID says "We believe something created the universe." That's it. There would be nothing else taught, no floodgates opened, as that is the entirety of the theory.
There isn't any test, obviously, but there are sound theories, supported by the evidence available from after the creation, that can adequately explain the creation of the universe without the necessity (key word) of a creator.
That's your opinion. Many people hold to the sound theory that you cannot adequately explain the creation of the universe without the necessity of a creator. Why are you so afraid of opposing viewpoints being taught?
I'm right, and you're wrong. Anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot. QED.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
I'm not afraid of anything being taught. Remember the thread topic.
This is about disarming the Dems ability to paint solid candidates as theocrats. Whatever the facts about ID, thanks to the press to the country as a whole ID = 6,000 yr old earth creationism and an absolute rejection of science.
We can defang the snake by simply making it a non-issue, rather than playing it up to energize a small segment of the base.
Also, on a higher level, I don't think the Feds should be involved in these issues at all, thus there should be NO discussion of ID by national candidates other than, "I believe what I believe, but it is up to parents and the school boards they create to determine the details of the curriculum in their schools or choose to not use those schools."
-
Do I believe in ID? No, I don't. But do I think that believing in intelligent design makes you stupid? No, I don't.
And neither do I.
However, I do believe that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling magical thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.
World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.
BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.
If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such magical thinking in the public schools.
AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.
I recently adopted my nieces son. He's going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in creationism and ID.
Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to ID and creationism being taught in the public schools.
-
Also, on a higher level, I don't think the Feds should be involved in these issues at all, thus there should be NO discussion of ID by national candidates other than, "I believe what I believe, but it is up to parents and the school boards they create to determine the details of the curriculum in their schools or choose to not use those schools."
I think that's basically what Jindal has said.
-
And neither do I.
However, I do believe that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling magical thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.
World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.
BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.
If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such magical thinking in the public schools.
AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.
I recently adopted my nieces son. He's going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in creationism and ID.
Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to ID and creationism being taught in the public schools.
And neither do I.
However, I do believe that believing in evolution and/or abiogenesis is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling "materialistic" thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.
World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.
BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.
If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such "materialistic" thinking in the public schools.
AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.
When my children are born, they're going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in evolution and abiogenesis.
Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to evolution and abiogenesis being taught in the public schools.
Now, perhaps you could tell my why your view is right and mine is wrong?
-
And neither do I.
However, I do believe that believing in creationism and/or intelligent design is a very strong indicator that one's world view is colored by what some today are calling magical thinking. Wishing something to be so just doesn't make it so.
World needs people like that I guess. Makes for an interesting variety of viewpoints.
BUT - and this is a big BUT! I don't want my children exposed to those view points until their young minds have absorbed enough information and developed to the point where they have a realistic chance of making a reasonable evaluation for themselves regarding the rationality of one view over another.
If a politician believes in either - human nature being what it is - there's a very strong possibility that he'll throw his support behind those that want to teach such magical thinking in the public schools.
AND that's one of my hot buttons. There's enough crap taught in schools today that we just don't need more.
I recently adopted my nieces son. He's going to be raised according to my beliefs and values not the states and not those who want to believe in creationism and ID.
Not a lot I can do to prevent him from being exposed to the state's views short of home schooling and that just isn't an option. But I can raise my voice in opposition to ID and creationism being taught in the public schools.
I think if you look into the science behind evolution and abiogenesis you'll find that there are an awful lot of holes in the theory, areas that aren't explained, portions of the theory that are posited but not proven, and many questions that haven't been asked by evolutionists but should be. The result is that it is a remarkably unproven theory, compared to the amount of faith some people choose to place in it.
In that light, teaching children with impressionable young minds that evolution/abiogenesis is the one and only acceptable explanation for the existence of life is just plain wrong. As you say, wishing it does not make it so. Neither does teaching it, for that matter.
You claim that you don't want the state imposing it's views on impressionable children, but that's precisely what you're doing. You seek to impose one unproven possibility which you prefer and exclude certain other possibilities with which you disagree. What you really mean us is that it's OK for the state to have a view and impose it upon children so long as it's your viewpoint.
The whole point of teaching multiple alternatives is so that the state doesn't have a point of view that it seeks to impose upon children.
-
Now, perhaps you could tell my why your view is right and mine is wrong?
Evolution is based on science. Observation of the real world. Rational analysis of fact.
Creationism and Intelligent design are based on nothing more than faith, magical thinking and religious effort to seem reasonable and rational which neither creationism nor ID is.
If living in a world of faith is what it takes to get one thru the day then so be it for those who live in that world...
Faith isn't gonna stop the tide from coming in no matter how much one wants it not to.
But science has stopped them from coming in on the coasts of Holland.
I choose rationalism and science over faith.
And yes I am right and you are as wrong.
That probably ends the conversation for there really is nothing left to talk about.
Should have known better to even start. Had this same discussion with my father, many, many times over many, many years - IQ 168, Bird Colonel in the Air Force. Respected cold war intelligence analyst. Logistics expert sought by industry and yet with all the scientific evidence available to him his strong religious beliefs prevented him from ever once saying that there was even the tiniest chance that science was right and he was wrong.
Magical thinking - <shakes head in wonderment> I just don't get IT!
Edited to add: Evolution is not "a remarkably unproven theory". Evolution is accepted as fact and the best explanation for the origins of species and how they change over time by the scientific community as a whole. It is observable at every level from the microscopic to the macroscopic, from short time scales to long.
Discussing it with those whose lives are a function of faith is an exercise in futility. <looks for head bang icon>.
I'm outt'a here before this getsf out of hand because in my experience neither side has, will or ever will budge from their personally held view on this subject.
-
So-called materialistic thinking has moved things forward just a bit. Evolution is testable, falsifiable. ID isn't. One is science, one isn't. Science good, teaches logic and reason.
Anyway, I distinctly remember a chemistry teacher saying that she personally had religious beliefs. She didn't get fired, it was hardly a remarkable comment. I call shenanigans on this being all that is wanted.
I think if you look into the science behind evolution and abiogenesis you'll find that there are an awful lot of holes in the theory, areas that aren't explained, portions of the theory that are posited but not proven, and many questions that haven't been asked by evolutionists but should be. The result is that it is a remarkably unproven theory, compared to the amount of faith some people choose to place in it.
In that light, teaching children with impressionable young minds that evolution/abiogenesis is the one and only acceptable explanation for the existence of life is just plain wrong. As you say, wishing it does not make it so. Neither does teaching it, for that matter.
This is where I think the fundamental misunderstanding is.
What should be being taught, and what kids who are taught the scientific method learn, is not the evolution is the only acceptable explanation - it is that evolution is an acceptable scientific explanation. If we want to raise the next generation of scientists, or critical thinkers, we will teach them what science is and how science reaches the answers that it does.
This is where evolution intersects with that 'other' scientific topic - it's not the science itself, but it is the public debate about the science. What most anti-ID types want is science and the scientific method to be taught in the classroom - the kids that go on to study it in more detail will understand the problems, seek to fill them and know that if the theory is wrong it will eventually be discarded and another will arise, but not some 'creator did it and there is no explanation' hand wave.
All theories are 'unproven' HTG. Those that want evolution gone from the classroom need to come up with another explanation, and so far the only way they know how to do that is to undermine the scientific method and science itself. I'm not willing to discard a very useful system because it removes man as some special element and has no scientifically provable place for God.
-
And yes I am right and you are as wrong.
On that note.....
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flaovoices.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F04%2Fnuke.jpg&hash=589e2ac9b706a7c5f25e0df7ef6578020002ce56)