or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Flounder

And here is the crux of the matter.I have not, at any point in this thread, advocated that someone's religion is a litmus test. I haven't because that's absurd, and I would never support such a notion.The litmus test is if they have stated a desire to inject creationism into biology class. I have not claimed, and do not claim, anything else.Allow me to quote myself from page one:Indeed, that's precisely what the analogy in my next post - which you off-handedly dismiss - ...
Calling them bad analogies doesn't make them any less apt.
ding ding ding!
Suppose an individual is up for an appointment to an influential position in the civil rights division of DOJ. She asserts her desire to keep those uppity blacks under control. She is otherwise qualified for the job. I submit this would be a poor hire. But again using your line of reasoning, how can something that hasn't even happened yet be a bad result? I could go on like this forever..........
But having that person heading a state education board does make it more likely. Again, in my opinion this would be a bad result. I like to make bad results less likely. Therefore, I feel the choice is poor.Certainly no one is perfect in all areas. In my opinion however, what she promotes is extremely detrimental to the education of children in Texas. Therefore, I think it's a poor selection.And where have I said they aren't? She has been duly appointed, and thus she...
I do not understand these comments at all. It's not criminalizing anything. It's merely saying that if a person proclaims they want to implement poor and unconstitutional changes to curriculum, that is not a person that should be put in a position to do just that.For example, upholding the constitution is a requirement for being a U.S. Congressman. If someone running for congress had previously declared their desire and intention not to uphold the Constitution - for...
Because if a person has expressed a desire/intention to inject something into biology curriculum that 1) isn't biology and 2) is unconstitutional, it is reasonable to infer that they will work to follow through on the stated desire/intention and attempt to implement it.These would be bad results for the education of children in Texas. Thus, a crappy appointment.
My sentence clearly communicates the actual change of the curriculum is what I'm asserting would be unconstitutional. I'm not sure how you would think I would hold the position that expressing the desire would be unconstitutional, because that would obviously be silly and quite clearly misread my sentence.Of course they are allowed to make poor choices. Indeed, that is the position, that Rick Perry has made a poor choice. That is my (and I can't speak for groverat but I...
The point is that appointing an individual who has expressed a desire to change school curriculum in a way that is 1) detrimental to children's education and 2) unconstitutional is a poor choice.
I don't think the assertion is that groverat is opposed based solely on her religious beliefs, but that she wants some of her religious beliefs injected into the school system. The article linked to claims that Gail Lowe advocates for creationism in the classroom. I have to say, the link used to back up this charge does not seem to accomplish its intended task. If, however, that accusation is correct, and she has advocated for creationism in the classroom, that is an...
New Posts  All Forums: