• 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

Fiddytree said:
They don't? When instructing about world religions, it would be improper to have creation stories?

I'm sure you meant in the science classroom, but just wanting to make sure.
Click to expand...

thanks for the clarification, yes, of course that's what i meant.
 
Fiddytree said:
They don't? When instructing about world religions, it would be improper to have creation stories?

I'm sure you meant in the science classroom, but just wanting to make sure.
Click to expand...

That's just it. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not religions. They are purported to be (by their proponents) to be science. They would not be in any comparative religion course or in any other course about religion.
 
SheWolf said:
O'Donnell's camp is now saying the concept of separation of church and state is in the constitution. She was only pointing out the Constitution doesn't say it explicitly, which I think is rather pointless to debate if you value the concept.

YouTube - Constitutional Clash in Del. Senate Debate
Click to expand...
Again, you're making things up.

The video you provide as proof explictly says just the opposite - that while the "separation of church and state" concept has been used by the courts in interpreting the constitution, the concept of separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution.

This is a fact.

It's no more a "part of the constitution" than the right to an abortion. Such concepts arise from liberal interpretations of the Constitution as a "living document," but are not part of the Constitution itself.
 
Taylor said:
He wasn't talking about some subset of observations or mechanisms, he was talking about evolution in general... "evolution is a fact"
Click to expand...

Evolution isn't a subset of observations and mechanisms.. Evolutionary science is a well respected science and it is very in depth and rich in concepts. Evolutionary science offers explanations of millions of years of phenomena and serves as scientific platform to make educated predictions about the future. Evolution is fact. The theory of evolution is theory.
 
Last edited:
Ajay said:
That's just it. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not religions. They are purported to be (by their proponents) to be science. They would not be in any comparative religion course or in any other course about religion.
Click to expand...

Creationism is not supposed to be a science.
 
liblady said:
creation and intelligent design have no place in public schools, period. and i'm a christian.
Click to expand...
Ok... but irrelevant to the argument that was made.
 
Ajay said:
It is? Methinks you've been snookered. LOL
Click to expand...

really...how so? intelligent design isn't an accepted scientific theory, and creationists believe the earth is 6000 yrs old. that should be taught in science class?
 
Last edited:
Taylor said:
Again, you're making things up.

The video you provide as proof explictly says just the opposite - that while the "separation of church and state" concept has been used by the courts in interpreting the constitution, the concept of separation of church and state is NOT in the constitution.

This is a fact.

It's no more a "part of the constitution" than the right to an abortion. Such concepts arise from liberal interpretations of the Constitution as a "living document," but are not part of the Constitution itself.
Click to expand...

Weather of not the concept is in the constitution is a philosophical debate.. It depends on what you subjectively believe "separation of church and state" actually means and what they constitution says..

If you think the establishment clause creates your concept of separation of church and state, then it's your opinion..

What does separation of church and state mean to you? How does the constitution not support it?

If you think the SC acted unconstitutionally whenever applying the concept, point it out..
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Creationism is not supposed to be a science.
Click to expand...

Of course we must define what we are talking about. Creationism as a religious story is one thing. What the Christian Creationists in America were pushing was Creationism as an equal to Evolution. That is not comparative religion. It is competing scientific theories. At least that was the creationists' argument.
 
Taylor said:
Nope. She's arguing that local school districts should be the ones to decide what to teach.

If you're going to criticize the argument, at least get the argument right.
Click to expand...

Her personal support of ID is very clear.. Her misunderstanding that evolution isn't fact, is also very clear
 
SheWolf said:
Her personal support of ID is very clear.. Her misunderstanding that evolution isn't fact, is also very clear
Click to expand...

personally, i don't care what anybody believes about our origins. but we should stick to what we know as far as school goes. we can teach our kids whatever else we want them to know outside of school........
 
Ajay said:
thank you for pointing a few little things like facts out. Homeschooling and religious indoctrinization will harm this nation greatly.
Click to expand...
Whoa! Let's bring this back down to earth, shall we? What a subset of the nation believes with respect to evolution and IT really doesn't matter a hill of beans, and certainly isn't a good metric for discussing the efficacy of homeschooling or our broken school system.
 
liblady said:
really...how so? intelligent design isn't an accepted scientific theory, and creationists believe the earth is 6000 yrs old. that should be taught in science class?
Click to expand...

you misunderstand:
Quote Originally Posted by liblady:
creation and intelligent design have no place in public schools, period. and i'm a christian.


Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree:
They don't? When instructing about world religions, it would be improper to have creation stories?

I'm sure you meant in the science classroom, but just wanting to make sure.
------------------

Quote Originally Posted by liblady:
thanks for the clarification, yes, of course that's what i meant.
---------------------

there is where I said you'd been snookered. Why?

because when Fiddy wrote:
"They don't? When instructing about world religions, it would be improper to have creation stories?"
Fiddy was wrong.

As I wrote:
That's just it. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not religions. They are purported to be (by their proponents) to be science. They would not be in any comparative religion course or in any other course about religion.
 
Taylor said:
Whoa! Let's bring this back down to earth, shall we? What a subset of the nation believes with respect to evolution and IT really doesn't matter a hill of beans, and certainly isn't a good metric for discussing the efficacy of homeschooling or our broken school system.
Click to expand...

If homeschooling teaches Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as equal scientific theories to evolution, then we are in trouble. Many who homeschool may do a good job, but there are whole sects of people out there with issues that go beyond whether or not a public school in their are is failing. Ideological and religious tenets are a poor metric for education.
 
liblady said:
personally, i don't care what anybody believes about our origins. but we should stick to what we know as far as school goes. we can teach our kids whatever else we want them to know outside of school........
Click to expand...

I agree with you...

But to say this women is just supporting local rights is insane.. She has a personal bias and a misunderstanding about science. Why should ID be taught in a science class? It shouldn't, because it's not a science..

It's all a political issue. Kids should just be taught science. If they think children need to learn about religion, then they need to be honest about the debate.. and stop trying to argue that local SD's should have the right to deprave a science classroom of scientific study and teach religious theory..
 
Ajay said:
If homeschooling teaches Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as equal scientific theories to evolution, then we are in trouble. Many who homeschool may do a good job, but there are whole sects of people out there with issues that go beyond whether or not a public school in their are is failing. Ideological and religious tenets are a poor metric for education.
Click to expand...

You can't even teach they are on the same level, if you are honest and sincerely understand the scientific method.. which is the scary part. If you have a teacher ignoring or ignorant about the scientific method, then that teacher is undermining the foundation of science.

We need to be concerned that children are learning the foundations of science more than anything else..

If ID deserves any mention it's in an advanced science classroom, and it should be a small side note.. in one of those discussion boxes in a text. But it shouldn't be taught outright.
 
Last edited:
Ajay said:
you misunderstand:
Quote Originally Posted by liblady:
creation and intelligent design have no place in public schools, period. and i'm a christian.


Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree:
They don't? When instructing about world religions, it would be improper to have creation stories?

I'm sure you meant in the science classroom, but just wanting to make sure.
------------------

Quote Originally Posted by liblady:
thanks for the clarification, yes, of course that's what i meant.
---------------------

there is where I said you'd been snookered. Why?

because when Fiddy wrote:
"They don't? When instructing about world religions, it would be improper to have creation stories?"
Fiddy was wrong.

As I wrote:
That's just it. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not religions. They are purported to be (by their proponents) to be science. They would not be in any comparative religion course or in any other course about religion.
Click to expand...

creationism is a religious tenet that cannot exist without religion. i believe id is the same. they are not science, no matter who claims them to be. so, they could be taught within a class on religion, legitimately.
 
liblady said:
creationism is a religious tenet that cannot exist without religion. i believe id is the same. they are not science, no matter who claims them to be. so, they could be taught within a class on religion, legitimately.
Click to expand...
tenet: [ a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof ]

The themes and stories in them could be taught as religion, but you are stretching the argument. ID and Creationism in the schools have never been offered up as religion. They have always been offered up as scientific theory.

As I tried to say before, maybe you are confusing differing ideas that use the same term: creationism.

Creationism with a capital 'C' is not a religious tenet.
 
SheWolf said:
Weather of not the concept is in the constitution is a philosophical debate.. It depends on what you subjectively believe "separation of church and state" actually means and what they constitution says..
Click to expand...
It's not philisophical at all. The words are very clearly used and chosen. The establishiment clause as it's called is a prevention of the State from "establishing" a religion. It does not use language that identifies a separation of church and state. Anywhere. At all. The Constituion is not subjective - what IS subjective are the Supreme Court rulings and subjective philisophical adjudications that create a separation of church and state based on what I believe is a misinterpretation of the 1st Amendment that has now stood for 60+ years.

I'd suggest reading of Rehnquists view in Jaffree as a good basis ...

(edit - here's the link)
http://candst.tripod.com/rebuttal.htm


The bottom line is yes, the founders did not want a national religion. They had that in England with King George and escaped it. But that does not mean that religion and public policy must at all times be separate. Yet O'Donnell is portrayed as an idiot - when she was correct. Establishment of religion and a separation of church and state are two different things...
 
I think that 2 candidates for US Senate discussing the origins of the universe in their debate is ridiculous. Especially in this point in time. The value of the dollar is in the ****can, the economy is a mess and showing very little sign of recovery. That is what they should be discussing. What they believe should be taught in school won't matter when the school is closed due to lack of funds.
 
Phoenix said:
I think that 2 candidates for US Senate discussing the origins of the universe in their debate is ridiculous. Especially in this point in time. The value of the dollar is in the ****can, the economy is a mess and showing very little sign of recovery. That is what they should be discussing. What they believe should be taught in school won't matter when the school is closed due to lack of funds.
Click to expand...

SO let me get this straight. You're one of those angy people who think if the 2 Senate candidates dicsussed the dollar, the economy, and signs of a recovery, we would be better off?

How? What would that have solved?
 
SheWolf said:
Her personal support of ID is very clear.
Click to expand...
Don't know, don't care.

SheWolf said:
Her misunderstanding that evolution isn't fact, is also very clear
Click to expand...
"Evolution" when it refers to the body material taught in schools, is not "a fact."

You may wish to define evolution as narrowly as needed to make your claim, but all you're doing is obfuscating.
 
Ajay said:
A phantom opponent in a bogus argument? Who if anyone, ever said anyone but local government gets to decide what is taught? Does a Federal Dept of Education set curriculum?
Click to expand...
Now you're catching on. O'Donnells views on Evolution are irrelevant. Wouldn't it be nice if they would discuss matters of substance in debates rather than asking about crap like this?
 
Taylor said:
Now you're catching on. O'Donnells views on Evolution are irrelevant. Wouldn't it be nice if they would discuss matters of substance in debates rather than asking about crap like this?
Click to expand...

Substance? When one candidate is obviously a fool? Sorry, but not liking the current system and being angry is no excuse for dumbing down the expectations of qualifications for a US Senate candidacy. COD's views are relevant in that they expose her for being the imbecile she is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom