Mccain's VP.

[Ban Hammer 13,338]

oh christ, this is still going on?

[dalegg 143]

As a Democrat, I'm a little perplexed why other Democrats would get up in arms over McCain's VP pick. Although there may be a great many things wrong with the choice, he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate, so if she wasn't that great of a pick, that only works to the favor of the Democratic ticket.

yeah, no kidding! The up in arms and almost downright anger here would almost indicate that you believe she will actually BE the vice president. I thought this election was in the bag for Democrats? Whatcha worrying about?

This is a great choice to woo the fundementalist portion of the party and is obviously a bit of a stunt- almost a hail Mary as the article on yahoo says. It is a pretty big risk but really what choice did McCain have that wouldn't either kill part of the base or brand him as "more of the same". What the heck I say!

We're going to have a first this November one way or the other though, and I think that's pretty cool.

[IAMX 3,055]

You seem very frustrated with the idea that creationism is taught and will continue to be taught regardless of your beliefs. Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

Two things. One, children cannot make a wise choice about a deity. They cannot even make a wise financial choice, or a wise choice about entering contracts, or wise choices about maintaining a healthy diet. The only way children end up religious is these values are instilled into them at a very young age, so when they're older it becomes far more difficult to get over the fact that religion is a farce. I wouldn't stop my children from being religious when they grew up, as, then they are able to make the right decision for themselves about these beliefs. However, by then they will also be far more objective, and have a far lesser chance of being pulled under by religious people trying to use the same Santa Clause scare tactic that if you're not good, or if you don't believe, you're going to hell. I prefer the truth, and having an open-mind and thinking objectively will help people be less deceived.

Secondly, there is, again separation of church and state. Public schools are run and funded by the state. If you want religion and teaching together, have it at a private school, which is always an option. Plenty of religious people go to public schools (in fact, most of them are religious, for now), and almost all of them are fine with them not teaching religions, especially being biased in which one(s) to teach. There's far more educational things to learn than that of religion, things that have to do with being productive and being able to support one's self out in the real world, like English skills, math skills, science, etc. The religious founding fathers well understood the need for secularism. This is the objectivity I talk about that those with extreme religious views and pushy moral haughtiness can't grasp. It's also something a retarded VP can't grasp.

[britty 1]

You seem very frustrated with the idea that creationism is taught and will continue to be taught regardless of your beliefs. Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

Two things. One, children cannot make a wise choice about a deity. They cannot even make a wise financial choice, or a wise choice about entering contracts, or wise choices about maintaining a healthy diet. The only way children end up religious is these values are instilled into them at a very young age, so when they're older it becomes far more difficult to get over the fact that religion is a farce. I wouldn't stop my children from being religious when they grew up, as, then they are able to make the right decision for themselves about these beliefs. However, by then they will also be far more objective, and have a far lesser chance of being pulled under by religious people trying to use the same Santa Clause scare tactic that if you're not good, or if you don't believe, you're going to hell. I prefer the truth, and having an open-mind and thinking objectively will help people be less deceived.

Secondly, there is, again separation of church and state. Public schools are run and funded by the state. If you want religion and teaching together, have it at a private school, which is always an option. Plenty of religious people go to public schools (in fact, most of them are religious, for now), and almost all of them are fine with them not teaching religions, especially being biased in which one(s) to teach. There's far more educational things to learn than that of religion, things that have to do with being productive and being able to support one's self out in the real world, like English skills, math skills, science, etc. The religious founding fathers well understood the need for secularism. This is the objectivity I talk about that those with extreme religious views and pushy moral haughtiness can't grasp. It's also something a retarded VP can't grasp.

Actually, I think children can make wise choices. My niece is a gym rat and eats a particularly healthy diet. She is also religious, and is satisfied with the answers she has received to the questions related to her beliefs. She is particularly bright, popular, well adjusted, and people are always commenting on what a great kid she is. Maybe your kids or your experiences are different. Everyone has an opinion. Mine isnt wrong - it just isnt yours.

[britty 1]

You seem very frustrated with the idea that creationism is taught and will continue to be taught regardless of your beliefs. Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

It actually DOES make them explode in some parts of the world, if you have not heard yet. For the same reason, religious extremism, what they were taught.

Does not matter if it's a judaism or islam or christianity, religious extremism does not have a place in modern world.

Most of the world learned it over the centuries, maybe except for some deep woods in the US, some high mountains or deserts in the Middle East.

Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

You know that it's a favorite defense line of child rapists, don't you.

what are you suggesting with that comment? Tread very very carefully.

[britty 1]

You seem very frustrated with the idea that creationism is taught and will continue to be taught regardless of your beliefs. Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

It actually DOES make them explode in some parts of the world, if you have not heard yet. For the same reason, religious extremism, what they were taught.

Does not matter if it's a judaism or islam or christianity, religious extremism does not have a place in modern world.

Most of the world learned it over the centuries, maybe except for some deep woods in the US, some high mountains or deserts in the Middle East.

Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

You know that it's a favorite defense line of child rapists, don't you.

what are you suggesting with that comment? Tread very very carefully.

oh and just for the record, any credibility you may have had has just been lost with the child rapist comment. Don't bother responding, you are kind of creepy to me now.

[Ban Hammer 13,338]

You seem very frustrated with the idea that creationism is taught and will continue to be taught regardless of your beliefs. Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

It actually DOES make them explode in some parts of the world, if you have not heard yet. For the same reason, religious extremism, what they were taught.

Does not matter if it's a judaism or islam or christianity, religious extremism does not have a place in modern world.

Most of the world learned it over the centuries, maybe except for some deep woods in the US, some high mountains or deserts in the Middle East.

Children can think for themselves and to present them with varying versions of theories is not going to make them explode.

You know that it's a favorite defense line of child rapists, don't you.

what are you suggesting with that comment? Tread very very carefully.

yeah that one is a bit off the wall.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ok, just to satisfy my curiosity, I think I need a poll re creationism.

[Ban Hammer 13,338]

Ok, just to satisfy my curiosity, I think I need a poll re creationism.

i don't see what the big deal is about it. i see nothing wrong with it being taught as part of the class study, but not solely concentrating on it.

[Dan J 277]

Ok, just to satisfy my curiosity, I think I need a poll re creationism.

i don't see what the big deal is about it. i see nothing wrong with it being taught as part of the class study, but not solely concentrating on it.

Its not science. It doesn't even hold up to the principals science is built on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). Part of learning about science is learning out how science works.

Its pretty disgusting that our debates on education, don't focus on improving education and helping keep our education system competitive in a global economy, but instead focus on religion in science or prayer in classrooms.

[MrsCat 6]

I read the article and her position on it, and to me it had nothing to do with religion or the scientific efficacy of creationism. Rather it was about the ability of expanding one's mind and considering other options. Now I think creationism is a bunch of horse sh*t, and learning about it would just further solidify my belief in that. There is always value in discussion and debate - it helps us understand others in our world, their perspective and creating more forceful arguments against those things that we think are wrong. This ads for more to a classroom environment, than one version/vision of the world.

Again, creationism IMHO is #######, but I do appreciate the opportunity to learn about it and consider its value and merits and whether it jives with my perspective.

Palin's view wasn't about scientific efficacy, rather about claims to the truth and allowing room for competing versions. A laudable goal IMO.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

(this is a pretty good commentary on McCain's choice)

Now that I'm back from the convention, and have transferred all my backed up stuff onto my new computer (sigh), I've finally had a chance to sit down and consider McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. I was in an airplane during her speech yesterday, but I saw her speak with McCain today, and I think it would be a mistake to underestimate her potential appeal. Besides making a significant chunk of the Republican base swoon with delight, she seems like a genuinely engaging person, and one who will give the McCain campaign some badly needed energy. These are not negligible things.

On the other hand, I completely agree with Steve:

"What matters most right now is John McCain's comically dangerous sense of judgment. He picked a running mate he met once for 15 minutes, who's been the governor of a small state for a year and a half, and who is in the midst of an abuse-of-power investigation in which she appears to have lied rather blatantly. She has no obvious expertise in any area, and no record of any kind of federal issues. McCain doesn't care. Sensible people of sound mind and character simply don't things like this.

Leaders

don't do things like this. It's the height of arrogance. It's manifestly unserious. It's reckless and irresponsible. It mocks the political process. Faced with a major presidential test, McCain thought it wise to tell an imprudent joke of lasting consequence."

I have a terrible track record predicting how voters will respond to things, but I think that this choice will damage McCain in the long run, particularly since he made it so shortly after Obama's speech. This might have seemed like a good way to stomp on the Democratic convention, but it also ensures that a lot of voters will have this juxtaposition in their minds: Obama's speech, which, whether you agree with it or not, manifestly took the election and the choice before us with the seriousness they deserve, and McCain's transparently cynical choice of a charming but plainly unqualified person to be his running mate, which did not.

I was also struck by McCain's willingness to gamble not just with our country, but with his own campaign. He has chosen as his running mate someone he has barely met; who has no experience dealing with the kind of scrutiny she is about to face; who has, by all accounts, not been fully vetted; and who is in the midst of a scandal. That is a shockingly reckless thing to do. Obviously, I think it's worse to gamble with the country, but taking this kind of crazy flyer on someone you don't know nearly enough about is recklessness of a different kind, and worth noting in its own right.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

[britty 1]

I read the article and her position on it, and to me it had nothing to do with religion or the scientific efficacy of creationism. Rather it was about the ability of expanding one's mind and considering other options. Now I think creationism is a bunch of horse sh*t, and learning about it would just further solidify my belief in that. There is always value in discussion and debate - it helps us understand others in our world, their perspective and creating more forceful arguments against those things that we think are wrong. This ads for more to a classroom environment, than one version/vision of the world.

Again, creationism IMHO is #######, but I do appreciate the opportunity to learn about it and consider its value and merits and whether it jives with my perspective.

Palin's view wasn't about scientific efficacy, rather about claims to the truth and allowing room for competing versions. A laudable goal IMO.

cattatude thank you for your intelligent post. I wish others were like you.

[MrsCat 6]

cattatude thank you for your intelligent post. I wish others were like you.

Thank you britty - with that lovely comment, I am officially retiring from further posts on VJ.

[Ban Hammer 13,338]

I read the article and her position on it, and to me it had nothing to do with religion or the scientific efficacy of creationism. Rather it was about the ability of expanding one's mind and considering other options. Now I think creationism is a bunch of horse sh*t, and learning about it would just further solidify my belief in that. There is always value in discussion and debate - it helps us understand others in our world, their perspective and creating more forceful arguments against those things that we think are wrong. This ads for more to a classroom environment, than one version/vision of the world.

Again, creationism IMHO is #######, but I do appreciate the opportunity to learn about it and consider its value and merits and whether it jives with my perspective.

Palin's view wasn't about scientific efficacy, rather about claims to the truth and allowing room for competing versions. A laudable goal IMO.