Since this thread is off topic, I'll continue...

We should privatize all schools. Get the federal government completely out of the education business - they haven't done anything to make it better. Have each state "lease" each district to a private enterprise which must meet certain criteria (grad rates, SAT scores, etc.). The best districts could bid to overtake the worst ones. Let the free market work. Government controlled schooling is failing horrible. 

To get back on topic, I liked the book, a lot, and thought the comments about our failing education system were right on! 

I would tell them that they cant learn creationism in science class. Theology, as a parent dictated elective would be acceptable, but I think it should be a broad and encompassing overview of all forms of theological and religeous thought. I am firmly against institutionalized indoctrination of any sort. And again, I feel the evolution only belongs in public school as a real life phenomenon used to explain the changing natural world we inhabit. I would prefer if they simply leave any mention of the origigine of himanity out of school until children are at an age where they can comprehend the choices and ideas being shown to them. Science class in public education should NOT broach the origin of humanity on any level at a grade school level. Science should teach children how the existing animal kindom adapts itself to the world around us using easily demonstrable facts. Theres more than enough evidence to trace the human race back a few million years, and teaching how we changed and adapted during that time is sufficient. Going further than that can be left to late high school or early college, at which point children will either have been indoctrinated/taught/enlightened by their family or be free to entertain the ideas that are presented to them.

I'm not equating creationism to science.  Re-read my post very carefully.  I stated that science can exist within creationism.  I believe science is man's revelation of the universe God created for him.  Even Einstein recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe.  There are several other noted scientists in history who do support the divine Providence of a Supreme Being. 

If evolution is to be presented as theory, which it is, then why can creationism also not be presented as theory and explored in public education?  Interestingly, the word theory itself gets it's roots from Greek word "theoria" which means contemplation, or in reference to religion, as a type of prayer or meditation.  While evolution is scientific theory, creationism is philosophical theory.  Would you really tell those interested in the latter that they can't learn about the subject in public school?  Is it true freedom to deny those who wish to explore both subjects as part of a well-rounded public education?

Very well said!

"As for the remark on creationism, why can't the two schools of thought co-exist?  Why can't both be presented and individuals make up their minds on which to believe?  My own personal view is that the two are wholly compatible.  Science can exist within creationism."

I have no prejudice against anyone who chooses to believe creationism, however equating it to science as a way of co-existing in public education is a bit absurd. From simply a logistical point of view, once creationism becomes equitable as school public school curriculum, WHICH creationism? The faiths of this fine planet have developed hundreds if not THOUSANDS of creationist epics. Is it only YOUR creation that is worthy of teaching?

Evolution as a science has not been proven to explain our origin, but it HAS been proven as an existing phenomenon in the world around us. The "theory" part only enters in when you apply it to the developement of life as a whole. Thus, creationism still rests firmly in the relm of theology. I would no more expect your child to be schooled in my theology with public funding that I expect my child to be versed in yours at others expense. Gaelic, Norse and Greco-Roman mythos all have intricate and fully fleshed origins of humanity and the natural world. Each was the predominant faith of its day and era.

Evolution itself is a factual principal that can be cause and effect illustrated at almost any moment. It's not theology. Theology is a private matter, and one which should remain outside all public education.

I think the true end to this arguement rests in not teaching evolution as a premise for the existence of all life, but rather its teaching as process that occurs all around us.  Dont try to teach the origin of humanity at all. Teach a better understanding of humanity and the natural world.

I wouldnt argue that the founding fathers were predominantly christian and envision a society based on christian principal. It's 2007 and we've let a lot of non-Christians in and made a new paradigm for ourselves. We need to adapt.

For the record, IM not Christian, but routinely fight against athiests who proclaim "seperation of church and state".as an excuse to remove Christianity from modern society. Congress Shall Pass No Law.....thats what it says. I dont think cogress told a fire station or a public school to put up Christmas trees, so if they want them, thats their right and I fight for it.

Unfortunately this forum tool cuts off prematurely - and the data is lost. We are testing a new tool and hope to release shortly. Keep it short for now, but keep posting. All input is good input.

For what it's worth, life would be pretty boring if we all agreed on every issue. You'll have a chance to see how alligned you are with your peers when the Selection Sessions begin.

Best regards

hey there,

just a quick thought.

don't know if you noticed but the article stoped abruptly.  is anyone aware of any word count or limit ?  at the end i gave very good reasons for term limits and would hate to do it all again.

just curious

alan

Well, Alan, indeed the title and content of your posting accomplished its purpose.  Well done!

Being able to work from home quite a bit, I too have noticed the huge waste of time and non-participation on the House floor.  If they spent as much time on meaningful legislation (or debating to kill bad legislation), our legislators would have a much better rating.  It seems like they just don't care.  Then, when really important legislation comes through, they read the title and vote.  No debate to see what little unconstitutional nuggets are tucked inside.  This must stop.

I agree that this type of discussion is stimulating and purposeful.  It gives candidates an opportunity to express their views and defend their positions.  It also gives others a sense of how passionate potential candidates are about the issues and it serves as a great primer for the selection process.

Thanks Tim and Carl.

I tried to think of the most obnoxious title i could to get the most reaction i could.

Indeed the were a great many things in the book that got my attention as does this entire concept. 

I believe the the more open we are with each other NOW among ourselves about each and every controvresial issue that currently overwhelm the population at large as well as the House, well beter prepare us for our endever.

I don't know if anyone has the time or inclination to watch C-Span, but I do.  It is truly a lesson is why our current system of government does not work.  The spend more time voting on naming post office's, congatulating baseball/football/baketball teams, worthless sense of the House votes, inane proceedural votes and then leave at 3 pm.  Most of the time when someone is speaking, it is to an empty house.  There is no one else there. 400 odd empty seats.  It is all for show.

Again, this is why I think it is so important for us to have these conversation's.

What do you think ?

Can we get other out from the sidelines into the frey ?

I find it a bit paradoxical that the title of the thread is "HAD THIS BOOK BEEN 666 PAGES, I WOULD HAVE DIED OF BOREDOM", yet Mr. Stuart had so much to say about what the book did contain.  Obviously, the content piqued Mr. Stuart's interest enough to argue, in some cases, in a valid manner, the views expressed in the book.

Can somebody not disagree with homosexuality without being labeled a homophobe?  That's that lamest, most unfounded argument in existence regarding the subject.  I disagree with the homosexual "lifestyle", yet, I have a couple of friends, as well as a sibling, who are openly gay.  They know I disagree with it and I don't want it shoved in my childrens' faces via media outlets or diversity indoctrination in elementary schools explaining why little Timmy has two daddies.  Tolerance in no way is an expression of acceptance.  Most Christians would disagree with me though on befriending anyone who may be homosexual, but I'd like to remind them to "hate the sin, but love the sinner".  I personally don't think homosexuality is the crux of the issue but that small, minority groups are not more equal than others.

I do agree that the government's war on drugs is a massive failure and a huge waste of taxpayers money, unfair to certain ethnic groups who may profile to be a larger user than another of a certain drug and making the penalties harsher, as well as being involved in the proliferation of narcotics and supporting countries whose chief exports are harmful narcotics.

As for the remark on creationism, why can't the two schools of thought co-exist?  Why can't both be presented and individuals make up their minds on which to believe?  My own personal view is that the two are wholly compatible.  Science can exist within creationism.

As far as the "gun-toting, bible-waving freak" comment goes, exactly what are the problems with these?  Do we not have these two rights guaranteed in the first two amendments of the constitution? 

As far as the "gun-toting" part goes, one would be deluded to think that this country would still have what little freedom remains if we did not have this right protected.  Not only that, those who don't follow the law would have an unfair advantage over those who do, leaving them helpless to defend themselves.  I am personally unwilling to give up my GLOCK 23, 2 shotguns and 2 AR-15s.  Call me a crazy gun nut.  I'm cool with that.  I call it being responsible and exercising the rights that many take for granted.  The UN would really like to see the US citizenry disarmed.

As for the "bible-waving freak" point, it cannot be refuted that this country was founded Biblical principles, and the right to continue to exercise these principles is protected by the first amendment.  Do I believe people can have good moral values absent of religion?  Sure I do.  But, whether the person is a believer or non-believer, those morals will differ from individual to individual.  I am certainly not going to tell you what your morals should be.  Don't slam the author for expressing his. 

There are several points in the book that I disagree with as well, but the one thing that defines this initiative is a desire for real change.  I think that's the common ground that can unite conservatives and liberals alike.