Christine O'Donnell is batshit crazy

Although she's too radical for my liking, I think what's she is saying here is being taken out of context. I don't think she is saying schools should be required to teach the theory of intelligent design, but rather that schools can choose to teach it if they so wish. She's not saying "it will be a required subject to teach" at all. To me, that doesn't seem wrong. I know in my biology class, our teacher was super liberal and yet he still decided to teach us about many theories. He taught us about the alien intervention theory, the theory of intelligent design (both Christian and other religions), and the theory of evolution. He felt it was fair that all viewpoints were given the chance to be taught, and then the student could then decide for themselves what they believed. I came out of that class endorsing the theory of evolution, but I thought it was great that he shared many viewpoints on the subject.

Wait, you meant that she's conservative, not radical, right?

RIGHT!?!??

Wait, you meant that she's conservative, not radical, right?

RIGHT!?!??

I have no problem with many conservative points of view. For example, economically, I consider myself conservative.

However, I see other conservative viewpoints, such as wanting to keep gay marriage banned and things like that, as radical view points and I don't agree with that.

I think that makes me more Libertarian?

Oh, I define liberal to be more radical, and conservative to be traditional. Your usage of radical confused me.

Radical means an extreme. Liberal means open to new ideas. Conservative means more traditional. One can be radical of either side.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

Learn something new every day, I guess.

Although she's too radical for my liking, I think what's she is saying here is being taken out of context. I don't think she is saying schools should be required to teach the theory of intelligent design, but rather that schools can choose to teach it if they so wish. She's not saying "it will be a required subject to teach" at all. To me, that doesn't seem wrong. I know in my biology class, our teacher was super liberal and yet he still decided to teach us about many theories. He taught us about the alien intervention theory, the theory of intelligent design (both Christian and other religions), and the theory of evolution. He felt it was fair that all viewpoints were given the chance to be taught, and then the student could then decide for themselves what they believed. I came out of that class endorsing the theory of evolution, but I thought it was great that he shared many viewpoints on the subject.

I don't disagree that people should have the ability to learn things on their own accord but l don't think we should do an all or nothing. Let's take this same thought and apply it to other classes like history: Should we allow teachers to teach conspiracy theories or teach with an anti-conservative, anti-liberal mindset, pro-slavery, or have any sort of bias input? You probably answered no or even said "well they'd have to vote for it" and frankly looking at the Texas state bored of education, I wouldn't put it past people to vote to teach a bias (i mean where like what, 80% Christians in this nation, you can pretty much assume intelligent design would be taught in schools). As well I don't think we should teach unsupported hypothesis and allow children to make decisions based on a short time period in which most of said ideas will be glanced over a (seriously Wikipedia probably gives a better more in depth description of evolution then most high school teachers).

She's trollin' again....
I used some campaign money to pay my rent. -Christine O'Donnell

Although she's too radical for my liking, I think what's she is saying here is being taken out of context. I don't think she is saying schools should be required to teach the theory of intelligent design, but rather that schools can choose to teach it if they so wish. She's not saying "it will be a required subject to teach" at all. To me, that doesn't seem wrong. I know in my biology class, our teacher was super liberal and yet he still decided to teach us about many theories. He taught us about the alien intervention theory, the theory of intelligent design (both Christian and other religions), and the theory of evolution. He felt it was fair that all viewpoints were given the chance to be taught, and then the student could then decide for themselves what they believed. I came out of that class endorsing the theory of evolution, but I thought it was great that he shared many viewpoints on the subject.

sorry bu they arn't fair viewpoints.

one is wrong the other is right
one is the single most backed up and tested scientific theory every conceived of and the other is just complete bullshit

theres more evidence for evolution then gravity.

sorry bu they arn't fair viewpoints.

one is wrong the other is right
one is the single most backed up and tested scientific theory every conceived of and the other is just complete bullpomegranate

theres more evidence for evolution then gravity.

I've been one to bash religion in the past (not something I'm proud of), and I still don't really see the appeal in it aside from the promotion of morals (you know, the things Jesus is really supposed to stand for like love). That said, I still think people can decide what they want their children taught in school. If the majority of people want their local schools to teach intelligent design, then let the schools teach it. It isn't like teaching religion makes the masses suddenly hateful creatures. In reality, most Christians are people who are very tolerant of others. That's the true Christian message. We can obviously see the radical Christians such as the Westboro Baptist Church who pervert Christianity to teach hate, but that doesn't really portray Christians correctly. Just like thinking that all Muslims are terrorists, things like this just aren't true.

I've been one to bash religion in the past (not something I'm proud of), and I still don't really see the appeal in it aside from the promotion of morals (you know, the things Jesus is really supposed to stand for like love). That said, I still think people can decide what they want their children taught in school. If the majority of people want their local schools to teach intelligent design, then let the schools teach it. It isn't like teaching religion makes the masses suddenly hateful creatures. In reality, most Christians are people who are very tolerant of others. That's the true Christian message. We can obviously see the radical Christians such as the Westboro Baptist Church who pervery Christianity to teach hate, but that doesn't really portray Christians correctly. Just like thinking that all Muslims are terrorists, things like this just aren't true.

sorry if I came off that way, I in no way mean that all x group of people are y .

anyways, debating on religion itself isn't alloud on SP afaik. so I won't however I'd like to say that you might want to read the old and new testament before stating what a religion is all about. incase you have already done this then we just happen to interpret what is written differently. as someone who has suffered discrimination and religious intollerance I have a very short fuse when dealing with religion .

sorry if I came off that way, I in no way mean that all x group of people are y .

anyways, debating on religion itself isn't alloud on SP afaik. so I won't however I'd like to say that you might want to read the old and new testament before stating what a religion is all about. incase you have already done this then we just happen to interpret what is written differently. as someone who has suffered discrimination and religious intollerance I have a very short fuse when dealing with religion .

My post was also aimed at Erebus too, but I didn't quote it. Probably should have, but at first I wasn't really gonna reply to him.

Anyways, I have not read either testament fully, but I do know some of the sick things that are said in them. I used to love, just as much as the next guy, to point out the horrible things the bible said were ok such as slavery. But people don't really take these things literally anymore. They focus on the bigger picture of the religion, which is generally the promotion of peace and love. There will always be people who take the bible literally, or misinterpret it to justify hate, but they aren't necessarily an accurate portrayal of the faith.

A nonreligious example to this would be our constitution in the USA. Originally, we allowed slaves. Does that mean that now that our country promotes slavery because it was once allowed? No. It is undeniable that many of our historic documents and texts were very politically incorrect, and yet they still have guided us morally and as time goes on the hateful and discriminatory parts are phased out of popular beliefs.

I'm sorry that you yourself have experienced racial and religious discrimination/intolerance, and I can see how that affects ones views, but I do hope you come to realize that although their beliefs may not be your own, they can believe it whether it is wrong or right. You don't have to agree, or anything, but you don't have to stop it. I don't mean this to imply that you support such radical measures as, say, banning religion, but if a localized area as a majority wants to teach two theories of how humans/life came to be in their schools, then why not let them?

A nonreligious example to this would be our constitution in the USA. Originally, we allowed slaves. Does that mean that now that our country promotes slavery because it was once allowed? No. It is undeniable that many of our historic documents and texts were very politically incorrect, and yet they still have guided us morally and as time goes on the hateful and discriminatory parts are phased out of popular beliefs.

We claimed no perfection. The USA never made the claim that we are perfect or that our documentations are perfect (even though some people think it is, it was never claimed). We don't claim to be unquestionable or sacred. The fact we are allowed to add changes to the constitution(s), basically proves this.

I don't mean this to imply that you support such radical measures as, say, banning religion, but if a localized area as a majority wants to teach two theories of how humans/life came to be in their schools, then why not let them?

This video kind of explains it. Just replace "creationism" with "intelligent design". It basically begs the question "why not teach them all?". I mean if Tom Cruise came out and asked the same questions regarding Scientology, or someone else did about voodoo or Islam they'd either be laughed out of the court room or called fascist for trying to impose their beliefs. The only reason this is even being considered is because it gets some BS special pass because the majority of people in this country want to attribute it to their religion. My personal opinion is that I don't think we should detour the advancement of science for human comfort (no that does not mean I am for the extreme things like forced human experimentation). As well if parent want their children to have a Religious based education, send them to Religions based schools (there's a lot of them to choose from).

We claimed no perfection. The USA never made the claim that we are perfect or that our documentations are perfect (even though some people think it is, it was never claimed). We don't claim to be unquestionable or sacred. The fact we are allowed to add changes to the constitution(s), basically proves this.



This video kind of explains it. Just replace "creationism" with "intelligent design". It basically begs the question "why not teach them all?". I mean if Tom Cruise came out and asked the same questions regarding Scientology, or someone else did about voodoo or Islam they'd either be laughed out of the court room or called fascist for trying to impose their beliefs. The only reason this is even being considered is because it gets some BS special pass because the majority of people in this country want to attribute it to their religion. My personal opinion is that I don't think we should detour the advancement of science for human comfort (no that does not mean I am for the extreme things like forced human experimentation). As well if parent want their children to have a Religious based education, send them to Religions based schools (there's a lot of them to choose from).

First off, I'm not quite sure how people are taking this, but I am not in any way trying to rationalize any theory as to why life exists or anything like that. My interest is not to prove or disprove anything (besides, I'd get nowhere anyway if I did). All that I believe is that people ought to be allowed to teach what they want to teach (unless it is obviously something as hurtful as, say, antisemitism, racism, etc.).

The way I'm seeing it is that the localized people should be able to choose what they want to teach. The schools are public, which means they should generally follow the guidelines the public sets for them. The basic principle in this country is that the majority rules, but it does not deny the rights of minorities in doing so. By allowing the majority to teach what they want to teach, while still providing something to the minority, you are doing what the country was sort of founded upon. Just like, atm, states are given the power to govern their schools. If Californians want to teach something that the people in NY don't, then the Californians teach what they want to teach and the New Yorkers don't. No harm no foul. Regardless of how you feel about how irrational the beliefs may be, if they don't hurt anyone then they are fine.

As for the religious school thing, I don't feel that is fair. As it stands, everyone has to pay taxes. Your taxes are going to fund your child's education if they are in public schooling. To say "if you want your kids to learn creationism/intelligent design then go to a religious school" is a bit unfair to that taxpayer. Essentially they're having to pay far more for their child's education (as most religious schools aren't free because they can't receive governmental funding). If you're paying for it, you ought to be given the chance to vote what your money goes towards. Maybe a fair solution would be to give tax cuts to people who opt to send their kids to religious schools. Then public schools continue to teach what they teach, and people who want their children can send their kids to a religious school without it being a huge cost burden. Basically these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

She's trollin' again....
I used some campaign money to pay my rent. -Christine O'Donnell

Currently laughing. Hard.

First off, I'm not quite sure how people are taking this, but I am not in any way trying to rationalize any theory as to why life exists or anything like that. My interest is not to prove or disprove anything (besides, I'd get nowhere anyway if I did). All that I believe is that people ought to be allowed to teach what they want to teach (unless it is obviously something as hurtful as, say, antisemitism, racism, etc.).

The way I'm seeing it is that the localized people should be able to choose what they want to teach. The schools are public, which means they should generally follow the guidelines the public sets for them. The basic principle in this country is that the majority rules, but it does not deny the rights of minorities in doing so. By allowing the majority to teach what they want to teach, while still providing something to the minority, you are doing what the country was sort of founded upon. Just like, atm, states are given the power to govern their schools. If Californians want to teach something that the people in NY don't, then the Californians teach what they want to teach and the New Yorkers don't. No harm no foul. Regardless of how you feel about how irrational the beliefs may be, if they don't hurt anyone then they are fine.

As for the religious school thing, I don't feel that is fair. As it stands, everyone has to pay taxes. Your taxes are going to fund your child's education if they are in public schooling. To say "if you want your kids to learn creationism/intelligent design then go to a religious school" is a bit unfair to that taxpayer. Essentially they're having to pay far more for their child's education (as most religious schools aren't free because they can't receive governmental funding). If you're paying for it, you ought to be given the chance to vote what your money goes towards. Maybe a fair solution would be to give tax cuts to people who opt to send their kids to religious schools. Then public schools continue to teach what they teach, and people who want their children can send their kids to a religious school without it being a huge cost burden. Basically these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher

- To first part: That's fine but what I'm saying is that I don't necessarily think someone should be funded by the government to teach their personal beliefs or the beliefs of the students.

-To the second part: That doesn't really work well. If the entirety of the student body wants to have something taught to them (or rather their parents want something taught to them) then it could work. However if you just have 1 student with different beliefs or even one parent who doesn't want that taught to their child you arrive at a problem. What would be the propose solution: Have the child miss class or have the kid forced to learn something that may go against his beliefs? I'm not 100% sure but a student with different beliefs could sue for discrimination. As well I fell the time used for the comfort of the students could be used to teach more things, E.G. the week or so they spend on teaching and testing on intelligent design could be used on better things or at least deepening the understanding on current subjects.

-To the third part: You can't necessarily argue: "you pay taxes on it so you should ALWAYS be able to control it", their are a lot of things taxes go to that aren't used by the tax payers and if you want a customized education instead of the one already provided you should have to pay extra because you want the extra comfort and extra benefits. But I do agree that their should be some kind of "School Voucher" implemented to those who want a custom education.

- To first part: That's fine but what I'm saying is that I don't necessarily think someone should be funded by the government to teach their personal beliefs or the beliefs of the students.

The government's role is to represent the majority without denying the minority. If the majority wants their government to act in a certain way, then the government is sort of obligated to act in that way, granted it is still fair to minorities. As it stands, our schools actually do teach person beliefs. For example, we teach the beliefs of the Untied States here in the states. I doubt many would say that people ought not to have rights, but it is still a personal belief.

-To the second part: That doesn't really work well. If the entirety of the student body wants to have something taught to them (or rather their parents want something taught to them) then it could work. However if you just have 1 student with different beliefs or even one parent who doesn't want that taught to their child you arrive at a problem. What would be the propose solution: Have the child miss class or have the kid forced to learn something that may go against his beliefs? I'm not 100% sure but a student with different beliefs could sue for discrimination. As well I fell the time used for the comfort of the students could be used to teach more things, E.G. the week or so they spend on teaching and testing on intelligent design could be used on better things or at least deepening the understanding on current subjects.

As it stands, at least in my schooling, for controversial topics parents/students can opt out of learning them. For example, in my schooling, for sex ed, parents could decide if they wanted their children to learn about it. This allowed people who their children to learn about it, and it didn't force anyone to attend classes for it. In my class where our teacher taught Creationism/Evolution/Alien intervention theories he gave every student the choice of whether or not they wanted to be taught it, with the exception of evolution because that is state mandated for everyone to learn. No one opted out (and it wasn't because of the threat of harder work or anything). I feel he did a good job not teaching any of the subjects with a bias. He presented each topic as best he could with what believed and why they believed it.

-To the third part: You can't necessarily argue: "you pay taxes on it so you should ALWAYS be able to control it", their are a lot of things taxes go to that aren't used by the tax payers and if you want a customized education instead of the one already provided you should have to pay extra because you want the extra comfort and extra benefits. But I do agree that their should be some kind of "School Voucher" implemented to those who want a custom education.

I sort of just see it that they should figure out the general cost of public schooling and give vouchers for that. They can then decide to have completely free education at a public school with their voucher, or have it go to lowering the cost of a private school.

The government's role is to represent the majority without denying the minority. If the majority wants their government to act in a certain way, then the government is sort of obligated to act in that way, granted it is still fair to minorities. As it stands, our schools actually do teach person beliefs. For example, we teach the beliefs of the Untied States here in the states. I doubt many would say that people ought not to have rights, but it is still a personal belief.

Yes but the government is also adhered to not endorsing any religion regardless of the opinion of the people. And to fund any religious beliefs is unconstitutional because they'd be endorsing it. As well you're example doesn't work all that well considering the US has very split ideas. Seriously put a 1,000 Americans in a room and see if you can get them to agree on a single subject, it's not gonna happen.

As it stands, at least in my schooling, for controversial topics parents/students can opt out of learning them. For example, in my schooling, for sex ed, parents could decide if they wanted their children to learn about it. This allowed people who their children to learn about it, and it didn't force anyone to attend classes for it. In my class where our teacher taught Creationism/Evolution/Alien intervention theories he gave every student the choice of whether or not they wanted to be taught it, with the exception of evolution because that is state mandated for everyone to learn. No one opted out (and it wasn't because of the threat of harder work or anything). I feel he did a good job not teaching any of the subjects with a bias. He presented each topic as best he could with what believed and why they believed it.

Right so people in your example have the choice of either:
A. Teaching their children as they see fit
B. Letting the government provide a non-biased fact based education
If the parents want their children to be taught something that adheres to their beliefs then it is the parents who are responsible not the government nor the teachers.

I sort of just see it that they should figure out the general cost of public schooling and give vouchers for that. They can then decide to have completely free education at a public school with their voucher, or have it go to lowering the cost of a private school.

I'd figure something like: figure out the percentage of taxes that goes to public schools and use that as a discount to prices of a private schools with a tax refund in case the tuition for the private school is lower then the amount paid via taxes.