Does Christine Odonnel represent your views?

[Rick]

Debate the issue? What is the issue? The question was whether Odonnel represents your views.

As for the first amendment, it says,



I wouldn't think the text would be in doubt, but who knows. Maybe you want to dispute it.

As for the wall of separation, that phrase was coined by Andrew Jackson.

So, does Odonnel represent your views? why, or why not?

The dispute OF COURSE is not what's in the text - only the grafting of leftwing ideology into it that isn't there. YOU READ IT - there's nothing about a "wall of separation", just like O'Donnell said. Who cares who coined the phrase?

 

[orogenicman]

The dispute OF COURSE is not what's in the text - only the grafting of leftwing ideology into it that isn't there. YOU READ IT - there's nothing about a "wall of separation", just like O'Donnell said. Who cares who coined the phrase?

So what do you think it means?

 

[GenSeneca]

Two things are very clear in the tape:

You mean the 8 mins of a 90 minute debate? Did you ever stop to think why it is that you only saw 8 minutes?

Odonnel does not know what is in the First Amendment of the constitution,

So says the propaganda... 8 mins of a 90 min debate, she looked to be setting up a "punchline" by asking Coons to explain the 1st amendment. As I have pointed out, a local school board decision is NOT the same thing as Congress respecting the establishment of religion and therefore the 1st amendment has nothing to do with the subject.

She believes that "creationism" should be taught as being as valid as evolution.

Quote her actual words to that effect because I didn't hear them on that 8 min clip. What I heard was her stating that the decision should be up to local school boards and not the federal government.

If you're so hypersensative about the "separation of church and state", then you should demand we stop using the Gregorian calendar because it determines the year based on the life of Jesus. That is why it is 2010 AD, Anno Domini, In the year of the/our Lord.

Surely that too is Congress respecting the establishment of religion.

 

[orogenicman]

As I have pointed out, a local school board decision is NOT the same thing as Congress respecting the establishment of religion and therefore the 1st amendment has nothing to do with the subject.

The courts disagree with you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The courts disagree with you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

silly fool, the courts don't mean anything to the right...unless they rule in there favor.

 

[GenSeneca]

The courts disagree with you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html

Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

silly fool, the courts don't mean anything to the right...unless they rule in there favor.

Using logical fallacies is the tactic of silly fools.

Based on your apparent views of what constitutes a violation of the separation clause, having government use the Gregorian calendar is clearly a violation of the establishment clause... Why then aren't the two of you up in arms about that?

 

[orogenicman]

Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.

Erm, we are talking about the law here, dude. So yes, appeal to authority is absolutely relevant to the law.

 

[Rick]

So what do you think it means?

See post 23, this thread.

 

[PLC1]

You mean the 8 mins of a 90 minute debate? Did you ever stop to think why it is that you only saw 8 minutes?


So says the propaganda... 8 mins of a 90 min debate, she looked to be setting up a "punchline" by asking Coons to explain the 1st amendment. As I have pointed out, a local school board decision is NOT the same thing as Congress respecting the establishment of religion and therefore the 1st amendment has nothing to do with the subject.


Quote her actual words to that effect because I didn't hear them on that 8 min clip. What I heard was her stating that the decision should be up to local school boards and not the federal government.

If you're so hypersensative about the "separation of church and state", then you should demand we stop using the Gregorian calendar because it determines the year based on the life of Jesus. That is why it is 2010 AD, Anno Domini, In the year of the/our Lord.

Surely that too is Congress respecting the establishment of religion.

I'm not sure I understand the point of all that. Do you think that Odonnell really doesn't believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom?

Do you think she was taken out of context? You're correct that I don't know what is on the rest of the 90 minute debate, do you?

Does she really understand what is in the first amendment, despite the "That's in the first amendment?" question heard on the tape?

Sure, if a local school board is foolish enough to want to teach creationism, and the parents in the district is willing to go along with such nonsense, the federal government should let them go ahead with it, and be ridiculed by the rest of the country. Is that what you see as Odonnell's point?

It didn't sound that way to me, but, as you said, there is more to the tape.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure I understand the point of all that.

Then try harder. When you first posted this, I found the complete audio of the debate on the 1150 website, broken into 3 thirty min segments, it should still be there if you care to listen to the rest of the debate. I couldn't find more video of the debate and that is unfortunate because some context is lost with audio only.

Now you've dodged my challenge to post an exact quote from O'Donnell contained in that 8 min clip where she claims to support something other than what I've said, letting local school boards decide what gets taught.

Do you think that Odonnell really doesn't believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom?

Once again you are victim of the false dilema fallacy. If O'Donnell doesn't speak out against creationism then that must mean she is in favor of it. That is not a logical conclusion and it cannot be confirmed by any of the statements in your 8 min clip. Pay attention to something else you said:

Sure, if a local school board is foolish enough to want to teach creationism, and the parents in the district is willing to go along with such nonsense, the federal government should let them go ahead with it...

Eliminate the judgmental language, like the word foolish, and you have echoed the sentiments of O'Donnell. Does this mean you believe creationism should be taught along side evolution? Or does it simply mean that you agree with O'Donnell that the decision, for better or worse, should be left to the local school board and not the federal government?

Lastly, I'm not going to drop this... If you insist that school should teach science and not religion, then address my point about the Gregorian calendar. The current year, 2010, is not based on science but religion. 2010 years ago something of great religious importance happened. An event so significant that it serves as the THE reference point for all time before or since. That event.... The birth of Jesus Christ, the son of God. Recognizing the year as being 2010 is not just an acknowledgment of religion in general but of the Christian religion specifically. By using the date 2010, government is respecting Christianity, even if it is not intentional or even conciously doing so, is that not a violation of the separation clause?

 

[PLC1]

Then try harder. When you first posted this, I found the complete audio of the debate on the 1150 website, broken into 3 thirty min segments, it should still be there if you care to listen to the rest of the debate. I couldn't find more video of the debate and that is unfortunate because some context is lost with audio only.

Now you've dodged my challenge to post an exact quote from O'Donnell contained in that 8 min clip where she claims to support something other than what I've said, letting local school boards decide what gets taught.


Once again you are victim of the false dilema fallacy. If O'Donnell doesn't speak out against creationism then that must mean she is in favor of it. That is not a logical conclusion and it cannot be confirmed by any of the statements in your 8 min clip. Pay attention to something else you said:


Eliminate the judgmental language, like the word foolish, and you have echoed the sentiments of O'Donnell. Does this mean you believe creationism should be taught along side evolution? Or does it simply mean that you agree with O'Donnell that the decision, for better or worse, should be left to the local school board and not the federal government?

Lastly, I'm not going to drop this... If you insist that school should teach science and not religion, then address my point about the Gregorian calendar. The current year, 2010, is not based on science but religion. 2010 years ago something of great religious importance happened. An event so significant that it serves as the THE reference point for all time before or since. That event.... The birth of Jesus Christ, the son of God. Recognizing the year as being 2010 is not just an acknowledgment of religion in general but of the Christian religion specifically. By using the date 2010, government is respecting Christianity, even if it is not intentional or even conciously doing so, is that not a violation of the separation clause?

Teaching the Gregorian calendar is not going to interfere with the teaching of basic scientific theory. Teaching "creationism" is.

As for Odonnell, have it your way: She simply wants to allow local school boards to make the decision. That isn't what she said on the 8 minute clip I posted, but I'm not about to sit through 90 minutes of her "debate" to try to prove you're wrong.

Maybe you could find something in the rest of the video to show how Odonnell really does know that the first amendment speaks to the separation of church and state, whether that particular phrase is used there or not.

Perhaps Odonnell is being swiftboated, and really does understand a whole lot more than she appears to in the video clip. Maybe that is so, but I seriously doubt it.

 

[GenSeneca]

Teaching the Gregorian calendar is not going to interfere with the teaching of basic scientific theory.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say local school boards can decide what is taught in their school then, when they make a decision you don't like (because it may "interfere with the teaching of basic scientific theory"), have government step in to force schools to teach a curriculum you agree with.

The Gregorian calendar is based on religion, not science, and therefore has no place in government or public schools... At least according to those of you who seek strict adherence to the separation clause.

I also notice that you're the only one with guts enough to even comment on the Gregorian calendar, while your "church and state" buddies have all run for the hills, kudos to you for that.

That isn't what she said on the 8 minute clip I posted

You claimed O'Donnell wanted to replace evolution with creationism in schools. All you have to do is listen to the 8 min clip and transcribe her actual words that prove your assertion. You made the claim, it is on you to offer the proof.

I've asked you to do this multiple times now but you haven't... If the proof is there, then offer it. If it's not there, then admit you were mistaken. If you are too proud to admit your mistake, then keep dancing around the subject as you have every other time I've asked for evidence.

 

[PLC1]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say local school boards can decide what is taught in their school then, when they make a decision you don't like (because it may "interfere with the teaching of basic scientific theory"), have government step in to force schools to teach a curriculum you agree with.

Can you point out a post of mine in which I've said that we should have the government step in and force schools to teach a curriculum I agree with? That's a strawman, and the exact opposite of what I actually said.

The Gregorian calendar is based on religion, not science, and therefore has no place in government or public schools... At least according to those of you who seek strict adherence to the separation clause.

OK, so let's teach the Chinese calendar instead, if the local school boards want to do so.

I also notice that you're the only one with guts enough to even comment on the Gregorian calendar, while your "church and state" buddies have all run for the hills, kudos to you for that.

You're welcome.

The Gregorian calendar is used throughout the Western world. It would be pretty absurd to ignore it because it's based on the birth of Christ. It would be equally absurd to teach creationism as science. If a local board wants to do so, let them, but the rest of the world will ridicule them for their decision, and rightly so.

You claimed O'Donnell wanted to replace evolution with creationism in schools. All you have to do is listen to the 8 min clip and transcribe her actual words that prove your assertion. You made the claim, it is on you to offer the proof.

The proof is in the clip I posted. Anyone can listen to it and draw their own conclusions. I'm not going to take the time to transcribe her words.

I've asked you to do this multiple times now but you haven't... If the proof is there, then offer it. If it's not there, then admit you were mistaken. If you are too proud to admit your mistake, then keep dancing around the subject as you have every other time I've asked for evidence.

I've already said that it is possible that Odonnell is brighter than she appears to be in the clip I provided. Perhaps there is something in that 90 minute program that shows she really does understand the Constitution and evolution, and who knows what else. The clip I posted doesn't show that she does, however.

If your interpretation is that she has been swiftboated, then by all means, show us how that has happened.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Appeal to authority: where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.


Using logical fallacies is the tactic of silly fools.

Based on your apparent views of what constitutes a violation of the separation clause, having government use the Gregorian calendar is clearly a violation of the establishment clause... Why then aren't the two of you up in arms about that?

take it up with the courts, you got a better calendar? I mean he** the one we have is not even right for what it was designed for...its off a few years

 

[Gipper]

Funny...liberals go nuts if creationism is taught in the schools...or if "separation" is in any way breached...

but they have no problem with the p-schools indoctrinating students with leftist crap like Fat Al's and Fat Mikey Moore's propaganda movies.

but they have no problem with government unions giving millions to Dem candidates using the tax payers money.

they have no problem with NPR spewing leftist BS everyday for decades using the tax payers money.

OH THE HYPOCRISY!