Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dem or Rep, very often we find them sending people who have never been educators to make decisions about education. Dem or Rep, both are prone to bouts of stupid when it comes to science (GMOs for Dems; Climate Change for Reps).
Ditto. I've resorted to my old habit of copying & pasting "quote".
I've thought of that, but with no button to add the quote tags, I resort to what is given so I don't have to keep typing out the quote tags.
Why when many of them can either import that talent or move overseas to find it. The policies here (and in other nations) have the effect of gutting the infrastructure in the name of cutting taxes (the rich can live elsewhere), cutting education (other nations can educate those we need), cutting the environment (again, those that "count" can find clean places to live) and so forth. The most important thing is to cut taxes, cut taxes and cut taxes with most dollar benefits going to, of course, the weathy and to ignore growing deficits until cuts in government are needed. Like currently in Kansas where road maintenance will be cut because of prior tax cuts. This shows that roads (education, environment,...) are less important than giving more money to the wealthy.
Yes to science because the Republican party exercises political correctness over truth whenever the truth is inconvenient. As in denying global warming because it is not ideologically approved. And denying economics when a policy does not product the expected result. And embracing a faction that denies science in general when it does not agree with their interpretation of their scriptures.
Remember the clown-car debates by the Pub candidates in 2012, the most of which when asked said they didn't believe in evolution. And most disagreed that we're in a state of global warming, even though it's clearly obvious we are because our knowledge of this is based on actual measurements taken over the last couple of centuries versus just mathematical models.
It's stupid **** like that is why I'd prefer picking on Republicans. Not all Democrats are pro-science, and they have some issues, but overall the numbers, when it comes to anti-/pro-science, favor the dems over the climate change denying, medical condition denying, evolution denying, and psychology denying rep nuts who tend to be more stupid when it comes to female anatomy.
I don't like many large bureaucracies - too often they lock up sensible ideas into hidebound rules, but unless and until there's a sensible voice on such matters, I refuse to vote for them. And there are some situations where I prefer a bureaucracy that is not warped by money (insurance companies vs government for health care - and Social Security) which are great government programs. So another question is baby/bathwater.
Maybe he didn't get the memo that we have a Bill of Rights that includes the 1st Amendment?
The usual argument is that this doesn't specify which God or savior, so it's not establishment of religion. This claim is often made with a straight face.
Thanx for the link, but I cannot watch Mr O'Reilly.
That often was interpreted that way during most of our history but the SCOTUS in more recent decades have been gradually ruling in the other direction. IOW, it's not only freedom of religion but also freedom from religion. Constitutionally, we are a secular society.