Posted on 09/07/2002 7:55:51 PM PDT by mhking
Actually, this discussion, like most on FR, started in POST 1. The subject of this thread is who should control what is taught in public schools. As it happens, your attempt to hijack the thread, to the irrelevant question of what is scientifically true, remains an attempted hijacking.
Mobs deserve no respect. Real democracy's track record is, within a generation, to demolish the very concept of law with one fashionable caprice after another replacing real laws, followed by unbridled tyranny arising in the vacuum of law that results. The correct answer is--stop saddling humans up like donkeys to support an enterprise they care nothing about. The Constitution had no original provisions for an income tax, and for obviously good reasons. Nowhere is it writ that we need to hyperfund scientific activities. Private research universities and technical journals existed before government funding, and they will exist afterwards.
Wrong again. Do any of you others on your side wish to associate yourselves with this idiocy?
It is commonly accepted because it is what he plainly wrote in "The Republic". It is a great excuse for fascism, but the source of fascism is pretty obviously fanatacism married to thuggary, encouraged by a fatal need in the human heart to turn over the big scary questions to Daddy. No people, who truly want to be free, and are willing to pay for it, can be enslaved.
Actually, it is generally agreed that Gouvenor Morris of New Jersey drafted the document. Madison was kept pretty busy as the Secretary of the Convention. In any case, the first amendment is not a product of the Convention, unless you agree with Balrog666 that the Bill of Rights was adopted simultaneously with the Constitution. In any case, the quotes you cited from Madison were not made as arguments in the Amendment process. That is because Madison wanted the Bill of Rights to be adopted, which would not have happenned using the arguments you mentioned.
Gosh, I was wrong.
Now it's your turn to admit your own idiocy.
He wrote a lot of things in 'The Republic'. It consists of DIALOGS, remember. The position you mentioned was presented by one of the 'participants' in the the dialog, not by Plato, who, as in most of the dialogs, does not appear in the document.
As usual, you are wrong. The discussion concerns WHAT should be taught in public schools. Religion should not be taught in science class. The nature and scope of scientific inquiry is certainly germane to the discussion. Which reminds me, you have still failed to properly identify or convincingly defend post #28.
And what, exactly, does it mean to "hijack a thread"? To point out obvious flaws in your thought process? To illuminate blatant mischaracterizations on your part with regards to the nature of science, the need for logical proof, and the subject and original intent of your own blinking posts? Or, having been thoroughly discredited since the thread began, are you simply attempting to shift the focus elsewhere by crying foul?
Actually, this discussion, like most on FR, started in POST 1.
And, like most on FR, the discussion has diverged into several independent arguments, many of which are partially related to the original article, all of which you have lost.
I agree with the Chief Justice, Judge Bork, and most other conservative jurists that this decision was decided incorrectly. A few good Bush appointees, and it will be reversed.
Exactly! What should be taught in public schools is whatever the public wants taught.
Sorry, on FR conservatives do not support the positions of DU trolls.
Then you should have no difficulty in citing 18th on 19th century sources supporting your viewpoint.
Does that mean that everybody should quit swapping posts with you?
Please cite any evidence that Adams or Washington supportted your viewpoint.
What about the thieves who take the taxpayers money, and then refer to the taxpayers who employ them as a mob. If they are a mob, don't take their money.
Those of youwho are interested in the question of who should control public schools, and if religion should be taught in public schools, may be interested in this thread.
As long, of course, as you personally agree with it. And notwithstanding the flawless grasp the average person has on the fundamental intricacies of science.
I agree with you LCS. There is no nationwide answer for this, the cirriculum of schools and the subjects in science class should be decided in every community to serve every community's own population.
The discussion of the origins of the planet most certainly should not completely ignore beliefs that are held by large percentages of the local community that is paying for it.
People with strong feelings about it should attend school board meetings or serve on these boards. Unfortunately, IME no one comes to school board meetings to discuss curriculum issues when they are on the agenda.
Wrong again. Do any of you others on your side wish to associate yourselves with this idiocy?
Post #209 ought to clear this up. The schoolroom take on this question is that the Bill of Rights was promised to obtain anti-federalist signatures on the Constitution, and without that promise, the Constitution would have failed to obtain enough signatures to legitimize it in the minds of the general population.
The sources I quoted earlier are not so sure of this. It seems likely that the Constitution would have squeeked by without a Bill of Rights and some influential federalists argued for delaying it until Congress could get properly down to business, if not indefinitely, but Madison, who was not a huge fan of it, interestingly enough, seems to have felt it a point of honor to keep the promise that bought the anti-federalist signatures. And he pushed congress into drafting it immediately, and took the lead its formulation.
Some of the amendments were offered up by the Mason and the committee of um...detail? toward the end of the constitutional convention, however, the Bill of Rights was drafted in Congress, as a single document.
Since the BofR was a horsetrade for the Constitution, and since both documents were plowing new legal waters, I would argue that, although they are separately drafted documents, their ties are so intimate as to easily forgive someone 3 centuries later for suffering the impression that they are one document. They are certainly the result of one coherent political argument to obtain a signed Constitution viewed as legitimizing the new government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.