New U.S. President

[xilman]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

"Putting lipstick on a pig" is an extremely common expression in the financial world, meaning "making something out to be better than it is."

That may be, but does no-one else here remember that international sex icon Miss Piggy?

"Pretentious, moi?"


Paul

[garo]

Oh yeah! And that thwack with the handbag accompanied by the mwaaaah!

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by AES

I'm searching for a valid, relevant quote from Palin, or her signature on legislation which supports the statement: "Palin wants creationism added to public school curriculum"

Here ya go - This was during the 2006 race for the AK governorship. She says she is a "proponent of discussing ID in classrooms", but not necessarily of "adding it to the curriculum", but note the bit about the AK governor appointing the members of the state school board [who decide the curriculum] and the official position of the AK Republican party on the matter:

Anchorage Daily News | 'Creation science' enters the race: GOVERNOR: Palin is only candidate to suggest it should be discussed in schools.

By TOM KIZZIA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: October 27, 2006
Last Modified: October 30, 2006 at 09:40 AM

The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

...

In an interview Thursday, Palin said she meant only to say that discussion of alternative views should be allowed to arise in Alaska classrooms:

"I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."

She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum.

Members of the state school board, which sets minimum requirements, are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

"I won't have religion as a litmus test, or anybody's personal opinion on evolution or creationism," Palin said.

Palin has occasionally discussed her lifelong Christian faith during the governor's race but said teaching creationism is nothing she has campaigned about or even given much thought to.

"We're talking about the gas line and PERS/TERS," she said Thursday, referring to the proposed natural gas pipeline and public employee and teacher retirement systems.

The Republican Party of Alaska platform says, in its section on education: "We support giving Creation Science equal representation with other theories of the origin of life. If evolution is taught, it should be presented as only a theory."

[cheesehead]

The current platform of the Republican Party of Alaska has a slightly revised statement on Creation Science:

http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/PartyPlatform.aspx

...

III. EDUCATION

...

E. We support teaching various models and theories for the origins of life and our universe, including Creation Science or Intelligent Design. If evolution outside a species (macro-evolution) is taught, evidence disputing the theory should also be presented.

...

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The current platform of the Republican Party of Alaska has a slightly revised statement on Creation Science:

http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/PartyPlatform.aspx

I notice they don't say "various credible models"...nor do they specify that "credible evidence disputing the theory [of evolution] should be presented" ... nor do they say anything about credible evidence disputing *Creationism* being presented. Is it me, or does their stance seem just a bit biased?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

I notice they don't say "various credible models"...nor do they specify that "credible evidence disputing the theory [of evolution] should be presented" ... nor do they say anything about credible evidence disputing *Creationism* being presented. Is it me, or does their stance seem just a bit biased?

It's you. Your bias is showing.

I'm quite sure they really do mean that the evidence must be credible (... to them, of course -- just as you and I would insist on evidence that's credible to us). Notice that a bit further up in the platform (III. C.) is "We also support teaching the accurate historical Judeo-Christian foundation of our country", showing that they value accuracy in teaching.

IMHO it's a mistake to think the folks who write that stuff are only trying to weasel-word. They (most, anyway) honestly believe what they say. It's a mistake to treat them as though they're dishonest.

[cheesehead]

IOW, the difference is not in whether credible or reliable or accurate evidence is required; it's in the standards for judging credibility, reliability, or accuracy.

If one believes that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then only evidence consistent with the Bible can be credible, reliable, or accurate. In any conflict between material evidence and the Bible, there must be some flaw in the material evidence (or, possibly in a few cases, in one's understanding of the Bible's Word of God).

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by rogue

IMO, people like her would love to turn the U.S. into a Christian version of Iran.

<snip>

That's really scary.

Or a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.... Kiss the constitution goodbye.

She is really scary.

[davieddy]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Or a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.... Kiss the constitution goodbye.

She is really scary.

This side of the pond, we are not so fond of a constitution.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by davieddy

This side of the pond, we are not so fond of a constitution.

Magna Carta?????

[xilman]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Magna Carta?????

Nope. Neither is the Bill of Rights. (Yes we have one, something relatively few Americans realize, and about a century older than the US version.)

There are any number of documents which influence common law and/or statute law, Magna Carta and BoR amongst them, but there is no formal written constitution.

Paul