This may have had something to do with the “loyalty test” issues.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palin-forced-staff-to-res_n_123137.html
Sorry, I see DTC answered this.
Moose-olini…
Wrong. Most Americans think there are two sides to the story and both should be taught in schools. The idea that most Americans are fundamentalists requires a strained definition of that term. Fundamentalists would think there is only one side-- the Biblical one.
Heil Antler!
I said that. I know you think you did, and that’s what the record shows. You’re wrong, it was me.
But the people who think there are two sides of this issue are wrong, too. There is only one side of this issue that’s backed by evidence and general consensus in the related scientific establishment…creationism and its very thinly veiled twin intelligent design are not an actual “side”. They’re a fable.
I don’t get people who think that the two contestants here are somehow equal, or that it’s “harmless” to teach the myth as science. It isn’t “harmless”. It breaks down that wall between “we have evidence for this” and “we believe this without evidence of any kind other than a 4000 year old myth”.
As long as I get my royalties, you can print it on underwear.
I don’t care if they’re actually fundamentalists. Their private beliefs are irrelevant. The problem is that they think there are two sides to the story and both should be taught in schools. They are wrong on both counts. Their religious beliefs are neither here nor there. The only issue is what they want to teach in schools. Palin is mistaken that there is any such thing as “both,” or that there is any debate.
Most people are just flat-out uneducated about evolution. It may seem simple to you and me, be most people aren’t you or me. I have lots of very educated friends who know next to nothing about evolution. And many of them know they should accept the science, but it just seems too hard for them to do. They typically think God tinkered with the process, at a minimum. These people are not Bible thumpers-- they’re just typical Americans.
Apparently that was what the new Mayor did in that town, after coming into office, all the dept heads were supposed to send in letters of resignation. Just liek the new Prez and old Cabinet. Now, I do think that silly as all hell in a pissant town like that, but Palin didn’t write it into the Town Charter.
Next, as this cite and others have made very very clear- That was also when she fired the librarian for saying she wouldn’t cooperate wih book banning is not only false, but doubly false and you know it’s false.
1, Emmons was not “the Librarian”. She was the Dept head (of the Library and Museum Dept). Quibble but “Librarian” sounds so like a noble professional civil servant, while Emmons was a *Political appointee who served at the will of the Mayor *and whose title was Department Head.
-
Emmons was not fired. She met with Palin and worked out a compromise. If she was fired it was only for a day with no loss of pay or anything.
-
The compromise worked out had nothing to do with book banning and no one but Kilkenny sez so. Not even Emmons. The “firing” of Emmons was due to Emmons being an active and vocal political supporter of Palin’s opponent in that election and due to Emmon’s resistance to combine the Library and Museum dept’s. Emmons and Palin met and Emmons agreed to merge the two dept. No doubt, Emmons was working under a very real threat of being fired, but she continued in her job due to this compromise. (I have little doubt she also agree to stop opposing Palin politically so openly, but neither has said that).
True, dudes can and have cast doubt as to Palin’s secret motives for her repeated “hypothetical inquiries” about bannings. That’s legit. You can assume what you will about her motives. I have grave doubts myself. But the facts are:
- No books were banned
- Palin did NOT “fire the librarian for saying she wouldn’t cooperate wih book banning” (and that statment contains no less than 3 falsehoods!)
Yeah but thinking there are two sides to this does not make it so. There are no sides at all. There are facts on the one hand and there is a ridiculous fiction on the other. Wanting to teach creationism (or the thinly disguised bollocks called Intelligent Design) is right up there with teaching Flat Earth.
I’m not sure that’s how she meant it. Of course there aren’t two sides to the story, but the fact is that children are learning one thing at school, and another thing at home. I don’t see how evolution can be taught in areas where this is widespread without addressing it in one way or another. If a teacher does it right, they might just be more convincing than if they ignored it altogether.
IF a child actually proposed the concept, surely a teacher would be able to manage something better than, “well that’s just silly. The world is round, and there is no debate about it”? I mean, I HOPE I would be able to do better than that.:dubious:
Look. The idea that someone who favors allowing (and I emphasize “allow” over “force”) creationism to be taught in school is automatically “scary” is simply hyperbole. Sure, there are many “scary” folks out there who want to force (and I emphasize “force” over “allow”) the teaching of creationism, but there’s a big difference between those two. The latter are fundamentalist. The former are just mostly regular old Americans. So far I have seen no serious evidence that Palin wants to force the teaching of creationism in schools.
That’s exactly right. It’s not so much a matter of accepting either/or, but using the input in order to start a discussion, which should hopefully lead everyone down the right path if the teacher does it right.
You have no problem with “allowing” the Establshment Clause to be violated in schools? The Constitution does not “allow” Creationism to be taught in schools. Saying she wouldn’t “force” it is not a defense. It’s like saying she would “allow” holocaust denial to be taught in schools but wouldn’t “force” it. It’s a bullshit distinction.
It’s true that there are matters of degree here. But we are looking at the stark evidence of GWB believing that bringing democracy to the middle east is a task given to him by God, and the blinkered unwavering determination and bullheadedness that comes along with the certainty that your path is divinely ordained.
For my money, President is a position which does not brook an individual who has a poor sense of the boundaries of their faith. If you are intelligent and educated (and you should be, to be president), then you should be aware that creationism does not belong in public education, regardless of whether you believe in it. Regardless, if you believe in it, that’s already strike one.
Let’s say that sympathy for creationism provides evidence for me that you are a George W. Bush type of Christian politician, and can be expected to make decisions in a similar way. No thanks.
Edit- I feel vastly safer with McCain at the helm in this regard. If the McCain/Palin ticket is elected, I may see my way to becoming some sort of candy-stripe secret service agent to ensure his safety.
I have no problem with someone disagreeing with that SCOTUS ruling, as long as they are willing to abide by it. I see no evidence that she is unwilling to do so. Her position, and I’m sure this is what you are going to hear in the debates, is that teachers should be allowed to discuss it if asked about it. We don’t even know what such “discussion” would entail.
Since you are so keen on her agreeing with this particular SCOTUS ruling, do you think every candidate needs to agree with every SCOTUS ruling, or only the ones that you agree with? Because the only reason it violates the EC is because of a SCOTUS ruling. I suspect that Obama doesn’t agree with quite a few recent SCOTUS decisions…
Really? I was under the impression that school science was there to teach facts. Look, I know you’re not a creationist and that you aren’t putting this out there as your own idea. But it strikes me as irrelevant what ‘ordinary Americans’ think in this respect. Science by democracy is, simply put, an incredibly stupid idea
And apparently, “most Americans” would like it to stay that way.
I don’t care whether you or they or anyone want to call them Fundamentalists or not, what difference does it make? The **point **is that the purpose of education is emphatically NOT to appease yokels. Isn’t allowing uneducated people to dictate the curriculum clearly a vicious circle?