• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

O'Donnell Questions Separation of Church, State in Senate Debate

Again.. it just goes back to understanding the scientific method. It's a great way to learn about logic and theory, and intellectual exchange of ideas.. design a hypothesis or a theory, improve theories.. constantly test them. If you don't really agree with some aspect of evolution.. guess what?
Most kids are beat over the head with the scientific method from elementary school all the way through high school. I certainly never took a science class that didn't discuss it in some capacity - maybe chemistry. Problem is, most really don't understand it and aren't taught to understand it. They simply come to learn it as a series of four steps and may understand that it helps to limit bias, yadda yadda.

Science is taught as truth and fact, when it's really more of an approach for understanding the world. Our education system gives kids the mistaken impression that science is a series of discoveries, like we're climbing some ladder to enlightment. The truth is of course different. No time is really spent discussing how experiments don't prove hypotheses, that science is fallible, or that ideas supported by science are not absolute and can change.

Most are blissfully unaware that the "scientific method" you're championing is a highly oversimplified representation of how science really works, that science doesn't actually "prove" anything, and that science isn't inherently objective, but is critically dependent on a robust and diverse community.

Most don't know how unscientific words such as "consensus," "established," and "proven," are.
 
But, again, Catholic schools are private and therefore not bound by the Constitution.

But again.. people have civil rights. A private company can't outright refuse to hire you because you are Christian or Jewish... Try it and it will go to a civil court. But if a religious school refuses to hire a Jew, that is ok. If a Jewish School outright refuses to give a Catholic a teaching position, that is ok.. it's legal it's first admend rights
 
I like how you act like it's just partisan politics..
I said "politicians" not "democrats." Pelosi was called a "witch" just this week and it's not like the Republicans haven't thrown the Nazi label around.

I think your defensiveness is more a reflection of your own partisanship.
 
Last edited:
Most kids are beat over the head with the scientific method from elementary school all the way through high school. I certainly never took a science class that didn't discuss it in some capacity - maybe chemistry. Problem is, most really don't understand it and aren't taught to understand it. They simply come to learn it as a series of four steps and may understand that it helps to limit bias, yadda yadda.

Science is taught as truth and fact, when it's really more of an approach for understanding the world. Our education system gives kids the mistaken impression that science is a series of discoveries, like we're climbing some ladder to enlightment. The truth is of course different. No time is really spent discussing how experiments don't prove hypotheses, that science is fallible, or that ideas supported by science are not absolute and can change.

Most are blissfully unaware that the "scientific method" you're championing is a highly oversimplified representation of how science really works, that science doesn't actually "prove" anything, and that science isn't inherently objective, but is critically dependent on a robust and diverse community.

Most don't know how unscientific words such as "consensus," "established," and "proven," are.

First paragraph is you explaining how you and others are taught the method.. how it's beat into your head

The rest of your post is ironically the ramblings of somebody who doesn't comprehend the scientific method.. perhaps you were a poor student or you quality of education was lacking.

The scientific method does support that science does change in terms of understanding and explaining the world... Just look at the history of our understanding of the solar system. It has drastically changed. It went from thinking the earth was flat, to the sun and stars moves around us.. then to the earth moving, and then to the earth spinning on an axis.

Scientific facts and laws don't change.. theories do. Theories are build around a framework of laws and facts..

Science isn't fallible.. the tests can be.. the theories can be. Saying science is fallible is like saying human logic is fallible. And if human logic is fallible then we'll just divide by zero, and the whole world will explode.

I was taught science by somebody who valued the study, it's apparent you don't value science. You act like science is useless. I was taught about testing and all the things you claim people are not taught or do not understand. I value science.. I think you misunderstand it..

The method is simplistic.. that is the point..

Saying science isn't objective is totally inaccurate.. Ask people if the theory of evolution is a theory or a fact? There is no subjective answer if the answer is a scientific answer. The objective scientific answer is that it is a THEORY.

Is ID a scientific theory? No it's a theory, not a scientific one..

Give an example of where science fails to be objective.. Do you have any example of science cramming a lie down our throats?
 
Last edited:
But again.. people have civil rights. A private company can't outright refuse to hire you because you are Christian or Jewish... Try it and it will go to a civil court. But if a religious school refuses to hire a Jew, that is ok. If a Jewish School outright refuses to give a Catholic a teaching position, that is ok.. it's legal it's first admend rights

No, but they can control your speech, if it's contrary to company policy. It's just like when a company has a policy that prohibits the possession of a firearm on company property.
 
No, but they can control your speech, if it's contrary to company policy. It's just like when a company has a policy that prohibits the possession of a firearm on company property.

Then they are not the same...

If you say there is a separation between church and state.. then there is also some separation between the private sector and state.. but it's not exactly the same in both cases. You can say the wall between church and state is a little thicker
 
No, but they can control your speech, if it's contrary to company policy. It's just like when a company has a policy that prohibits the possession of a firearm on company property.

Not really. They can fire you for making statements contrary to their policy. This is far from controlling ones speech. It's a mutual respect of rights. You have no right to the job. They have no right to tell you what to say. If you are willing to keep your mouth shut they are willing to pay you.
 
We could drop evolution entirely and I doubt it would have much of an impact on the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of topics more important to preparing individuals for success in life.

The first part of your post is simply astounding in it's ignorance. I am at a loss on how to respond.
 
We could drop evolution entirely and I doubt it would have much of an impact on the nation. There are dozens if not hundreds of topics more important to preparing individuals for success in life.

But - politicians like to discuss evolution. It perks the interests of voters, where Jimmy's inability to read and do basic math at age 10 doesn't.

Politicians who like to discuss evolution are the ones who bring it into a public political debate. That would be Christian fundamentalists and Christian conservatives, along with a smattering of others of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic strains of faiths.
 
I'm sure there are a lot of people who share your view. It's why politicians talk witchcraft and nazis rather than monetary policy and structural deficits.

Funny thing is, you think it's the "other guy" dumbing things down.

Avoiding one's past statements is what most demagogues want to do when they are turning on a dime.
 
Not really. They can fire you for making statements contrary to their policy. This is far from controlling ones speech. It's a mutual respect of rights. You have no right to the job. They have no right to tell you what to say. If you are willing to keep your mouth shut they are willing to pay you.

Just like an atheist has no right to a job, at a private Catholic school. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
 
Politicians who like to discuss evolution are the ones who bring it into a public political debate. That would be Christian fundamentalists and Christian conservatives, along with a smattering of others of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic strains of faiths.

Then if I read you right, you would have no problem teaching creationism, or Intelligent design right along side with evolution?

j-mac
 
Just like an atheist has no right to a job, at a private Catholic school. Thank you for reinforcing my point.

Nobody has a right to a job even in the public sector.. But in the private and public sector employers are still subject to Title VII. Do you think tax dollars should go to religious schools or not? If there is no separation.. then why not send them money?

It isn't for the reason so they can retain the rights to fire atheists either..
 
Nobody has a right to a job even in the public sector.. But in the private and public sector employers are still subject to Title VII. Do you think tax dollars should go to religious schools or not? If there is no separation.. then why not send them money?

It isn't for the reason so they can retain the rights to fire atheists either..

Liberals that have taken over the education system would never allow, or admit that their misreading of the establishment clause to allow federal funds to go to religious schools. Their power would disappear, because the fundamental and deliberate distortion of the Constitution is the cornerstone of the survival of liberal progressivism.

j-mac
 
No, but they can control your speech, if it's contrary to company policy. It's just like when a company has a policy that prohibits the possession of a firearm on company property.

Public and private schools both control speech in terms of education.. so it's not a valid comparison. The private sector also controls speech but unlike private religious schools they are exempt from following many parts of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, applied through the 14th Amendment
 
Liberals that have taken over the education system would never allow, or admit that their misreading of the establishment clause to allow federal funds to go to religious schools. Their power would disappear, because the fundamental and deliberate distortion of the Constitution is the cornerstone of the survival of liberal progressivism.

j-mac

I am a little confused by what you are trying to say.. that liberals who misread the constitution are allowing federal funding to go to religious schools?
 
I'm more worried by the fact that she wants local communities to be in charge of setting educational standards. That's simply unacceptable in the 21st century. If parents want to teach their kids creationism they can go to church.
 
Then if I read you right, you would have no problem teaching creationism, or Intelligent design right along side with evolution?

j-mac
Quote Originally Posted by Ajay:
Politicians who like to discuss evolution are the ones who bring it into a public political debate. That would be Christian fundamentalists and Christian conservatives, along with a smattering of others of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic strains of faiths.
---------------

Huh? I would if they were credible scientific theories. But they aren't.
 
I'm more worried by the fact that she wants local communities to be in charge of setting educational standards. That's simply unacceptable in the 21st century. If parents want to teach their kids creationism they can go to church.

Yeah, we need a central government to control the indoctrination, er, education that takes place in the country's schools.

Personally, I don't think either theory should be taught in school. One is a religious theory and the other is an anti-religious theory, making them both a belief and not worthy of being taught to school kids. School exists to teach kids how to think, not what to think.
 
Yeah, we need a central government to control the indoctrination, er, education that takes place in the country's schools.

Personally, I don't think either theory should be taught in school. One is a religious theory and the other is an anti-religious theory, making them both a belief and not worthy of being taught to school kids. School exists to teach kids how to think, not what to think.

Evolution is a theory the way the theory of general relativity is a theory. The only people who refuse to accept it are those who are too ignorant of basic scientific principles to actually understand it or can't accept it because of their religious beliefs. Again, calling a standardized teaching of history is not indoctrination. It's a very basic and logical sociological concept. It makes sense.
 
One is a religious theory and the other is an anti-religious theory, making them both a belief and not worthy of being taught to school kids.

Please post exactly how the theory of evolution is "anti-religious".

Even most religious people realize that evolution and their respective religion can coincide with each other.

Unless of course you are referring to the Big Bang Theory which is not the theory of evolution.
 
Read the Constitution Deuce.

Separation of Chruch and State is not in the Constitution.

She is right. Its amazing you didn't know that.

Jefferson used the phrase in a letter "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878.

Understanding the constitution is not just about reading the words, but understanding what they mean and all the relevant SCOTUS cases that have further defined and clarified those words.

You'd think Odonnell, being a constitutional expert and scholar would know that.

So the first amendment protects religion from government and, hopefully, vice-versa.
 
Scientific facts and laws don't change.. theories do. Theories are build around a framework of laws and facts.
Wrong. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. When contridicted by new information, scientific facts and laws are disproven and (hopefully) replaced by a new fact or law.

Science isn't fallible.. the tests can be.. the theories can be. Saying science is fallible is like saying human logic is fallible.
No, the comparison is poor one. "Tests and theories" are a part of science -your claim is akin to me saying "cars don't break down, engines and transmissions do"

Science that is flawlessly conducted is still fallible, the same is not true of logic. Science depends on observation. Logic is all in the head.

Saying science isn't objective is totally inaccurate. Ask people if the theory of evolution is a theory or a fact? There is no subjective answer if the answer is a scientific answer. The objective scientific answer is that it is a THEORY.
Spoken like someone who has never actually conducted science. Interpretations are constantly tainted by theoretical dispositions, personal characterisitics, etc. The same data can and will lead "objective" scientists to different conclusions.

Give an example of where science fails to be objective.. Do you have any example of science cramming a lie down our throats?
I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "objectivity." A failure to be objective does not mean that you're lying.

There are lots of examples where the consensus view in science was wrong, where a particular theoretical disposition blinded the masses to contradictory evidence. Wegener correctly theorized in 1912 that the continents drifted to their present positions from a single landmass. His ideas were thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, which clinged for another 50 years to a very flawed theory that land had once connected the continents and had simply sunk under the ocean.
 
Wrong. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. When contridicted by new information, scientific facts and laws are disproven and (hopefully) replaced by a new fact or law.


No, the comparison is poor one. "Tests and theories" are a part of science -your claim is akin to me saying "cars don't break down, engines and transmissions do"

Science that is flawlessly conducted is still fallible, the same is not true of logic. Science depends on observation. Logic is all in the head.


Spoken like someone who has never actually conducted science. Interpretations are constantly tainted by theoretical dispositions, personal characterisitics, etc. The same data can and will lead "objective" scientists to different conclusions.


I'm not sure you understand the meaning of "objectivity." A failure to be objective does not mean that you're lying.

There are lots of examples where the consensus view in science was wrong, where a particular theoretical disposition blinded the masses to contradictory evidence. Wegener correctly theorized in 1912 that the continents drifted to their present positions from a single landmass. His ideas were thoroughly rejected by the scientific community, which clinged for another 50 years to a very flawed theory that land had once connected the continents and had simply sunk under the ocean.

So what you're saying is that science, has been corrected by other science? Well gosh golly, I guess that proves that science is well, fallible and objective if it can correct itself. However that just kind of supports the different between science and creationism and religion explanations for 'creation' doesn't? It does not matter how much evidence - and evidence there is - which supports natural explanations for the world around us. The solution to all this complexity has already been found by creationists. It's the creator. Well that's all fine and dandy but how do you know it was one creator? Why not two? Why not 300? And what created this creator? The thing is that when you make up a 'creator' you push yourself into a box. A creator requires a creator doesn't it? Creationism leads itself into a loop with no way of verification or testing. That's why the scientific community doesn't support it.
 
Do you think tax dollars should go to religious schools or not? If there is no separation.. then why not send them money?
Setting aside practicalities...
The purpose of those tax dollars is to provide a basic education. If a religious school is able to provide just as good a basic education as a secular school, why not pay for it with tax dollars? The government is being completely neutral with respect to religion.
 
Back
Top Bottom