Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney in 2005: Opposed Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools
The Brody File ^ | May 7, 2007 | David Brody

Posted on 05/07/2007 11:10:42 PM PDT by TitansAFC

The Brody File is at it again. Another little scoop. According to an interview Mitt Romney did with The Boston Globe in December of 2005, the former Governor of Massachusetts said he was against the teaching of intelligence design in public schools. There are quite a few Evangelicals who believe the exact opposite; that intelligent design should indeed be taught in public schools alongside Evolution.

The quote comes from an article by Frank Phillips who was writing about how Romney felt the Boston media was distorting his views. During the article, Romney defends himself, saying he is not moving to the right just for future political purposes. And he gives intelligent design as proof positive. Here's part of the article:

"Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that reports he has shifted to the political right to attract Republican primary voters are Boston media distortions, and emphasized that his positions are considered moderate on the national scene. In a wide-ranging interview with the Globe a week after announcing he will not seek reelection, Romney insisted he has remained consistent throughout his tenure in the corner office, adhering to positions he staked out in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The governor also pledged that any presidential ambitions he harbors will not dictate his agenda on Beacon Hill. "As I bring forward issues, it is clear that this is not something I am using for my reelection campaign," Romney said. "The Legislature can look at them with a nonpolitical light." Romney contended that political considerations are not the major factor behind his positions. For example, he said yesterday, he opposes the teaching of intelligent design in science classes in public schools, a stance at odds with some conservative voters. He said he arrived at that position without consulting his national political adviser, Michael Murphy."

Read the rest of the article here. The last thing Romney needs is another reason for Evangelicals not to vote for him. His Mormonism is an issue for some. His past flip flops give some pause. Now, past statements against teaching intelligent design in public school. That may play well in a General Election but to put it in football terms, Mitt Romney needs to get out of the first rounds of the playoffs before he competes in the SuperBowl. The first round of the playoffs are the GOP Primaries. Evangelicals will play a key role, especially in the South. Romney wants to be the candidate for Evangelicals. John McCain and Giuliani less so because they've been painted as either a maverick or moderate. So that's why issues like this can hurt Romney more.

So does Romney still believe that intelligent design should not be taught in public schools? I plan to ask his campaign. Check back here. Remember, this is not so much a debate about Intelligent Design. This is about whether an issue like this would give Evvangelicals a little more pause about Romney? President Bush thinks Intelligent Design should be taught.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; id; idjunkscience; mitt; mittromney; romney
For the record, I have warmed to Romney as of a couple months ago. However, this is a debated issue at FR, so I posted it.

In full disclosure, it appears to me that of the big four (Romney, McCain, Rudy, Fred), David Brody APPEARS to favor Rudy Giuliani. I am not difinitively stating that he does.

I like Mitt, have grown to like him more in the past couple of weeks, and would like to hear his response on such issues. Would he still support a ban on the teaching of ID?

1 posted on 05/07/2007 11:10:44 PM PDT by TitansAFC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Are any of these strange creatures being paraded before us actually friendly to our cause???


2 posted on 05/07/2007 11:19:28 PM PDT by PetroniusMaximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

“There are quite a few Evangelicals who believe the exact opposite; that intelligent design should indeed be taught in public schools alongside Evolution.”

But they’re wrong about that.


3 posted on 05/08/2007 12:42:14 AM PDT by ConsistentLibertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian
“There are quite a few Evangelicals who believe the exact opposite; that intelligent design should indeed be taught in public schools alongside Evolution.” But they’re wrong about that.

What is wrong is for materialst naturalism to be taught in school as if it were scientific.

4 posted on 05/08/2007 12:49:59 AM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

The people who imagine this issue is a deal-breaker have delusions of grandeur.


5 posted on 05/08/2007 12:55:30 AM PDT by L.N. Smithee (Memo to Sam Raimi re: the last ten minutes -- I don't forgive you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

The Flying Fascist There was a time when Church met State. It was called the Dark Ages.
http://samhensel.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/this-is-cool/

Romney says the First Amendment does not mean that no religion should be established, or that secularism should be established in place of religion. He also says Judeo-Christian values helped found the United States and continue to influence it today. Romney supports keeping references to God on U.S. money, in the Pledge of Allegiance and in public places to remind Americans of their heritage


6 posted on 05/08/2007 12:56:27 AM PDT by restornu (Elevate Your Thoughts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Romney also opposes Second Amendment rights. That’s all I need to know.


7 posted on 05/08/2007 1:39:47 AM PDT by AlaskaErik (Run, Fred, run!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
I am not a Mitt, Rudy or McCain fan. You said, “Would he still support a ban on the teaching of ID?”

I think whoever you are a fan of, if the candidate does not still support their historic records, then they should articulate when and why they changed. Let the chips fall.

8 posted on 05/08/2007 2:13:31 AM PDT by tiger-one (The night has a thousand eyes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

ID is not science and should not be taught alongside evolution.


9 posted on 05/08/2007 2:54:18 AM PDT by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Good for him. I hope he sticks to his guns on this issue.


10 posted on 05/08/2007 3:03:41 AM PDT by saganite (Billions and billions and billions----and that's just the NASA budget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

Oh the evolutionists have done such a great job controlling education, they should take PRIDE in their success.


11 posted on 05/08/2007 3:08:11 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: visualops
ID is not science and should not be taught alongside evolution.

Concurring bump.

The ID/creationist crowd have made a fundamental error: trying to argue matters of faith and mixing them with science. Physics and metaphysics don't mix at the macro level.

12 posted on 05/08/2007 3:41:08 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
The ID/creationist crowd have made a fundamental error: trying to argue matters of faith and mixing them with science. Physics and metaphysics don't mix at the macro level.

They why preach to the little children things happened in such and such manner based solely on theory?

13 posted on 05/08/2007 4:05:25 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

If any candidate for President can be tagged as supporting teaching ID in public schools, they are GUARANTEED to lose, in the biggest landslide in American history.


14 posted on 05/08/2007 4:07:45 AM PDT by Jim Noble (We don't need to know what Cho thought. We need to know what Librescu thought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

“ It has been the error of the schools to teach astronomy, and all the other sciences, and subjects of natural philosophy, as accomplishments only; whereas they should be taught theologically, or with reference to the Being who is the author of them: for all the principles of science are of divine origin. Man cannot make, or invent, or contrive principles: he can only discover them; and he ought to look through the discovery to the Author.”

“ The evil that has resulted from the error of the schools, in teaching natural philosophy as an accomplishment only, has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism. Instead of looking through the works of creation to the Creator himself, they stop short, and employ the knowledge they acquire to create doubts of his existence. They labour with studied ingenuity to ascribe every thing they behold to innate properties of matter, and jump over all the rest by saying, that matter is eternal.”

“The Existence of God—1810” by Thomas Paine


15 posted on 05/08/2007 4:48:57 AM PDT by ChuteTheMall (Tagline: If you're reading this, I'm influencing your mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: visualops
ID is not science and should not be taught alongside evolution.

Amen.

16 posted on 05/08/2007 4:56:21 AM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: unspun

What is wrong is for schools to to undertake social engineering, to forgo discipline for elevation of victimhood, and to increasingly spend more time doing anything but teaching subject matter and critical thinking.
Science is not incompatible with Christianity.


17 posted on 05/08/2007 5:16:57 AM PDT by visualops (artlife.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
"Romney in 2005: Opposed Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools"

That's a plus, now if I could just trust him on the 2nd amendment.

18 posted on 05/08/2007 5:20:35 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
If any candidate for President can be tagged as supporting teaching ID in public schools, they are GUARANTEED to lose, in the biggest landslide in American history.

ID/Creation is to the Republicans what Gun Control is to the Democrats: the self appointed "base" wants it, snd it's poison when it goes to the voters

19 posted on 05/08/2007 5:37:30 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("Caesar - he is a barbarian and considers that the customs of his tribe are the laws of Nature")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ConsistentLibertarian

Why?


20 posted on 05/08/2007 5:41:33 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

They just don’t want to give up their monopoly on the issue. Heaven forbid that the TAXPAYERS actually have a say in what their taxes are being used for in the education of THEIR own children.

I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative and be so in favor of federal government control of education.


21 posted on 05/08/2007 5:46:35 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

A point in his favor.


22 posted on 05/08/2007 5:47:21 AM PDT by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChuteTheMall
Book of Mormon prophet gives the smack down to an anti-Christ promoting secular humanism.

This is one of the best treatsies I have ever read against secular humanism. It supports your quote that all things denote there is a God.

[Anti-Christ named Korihor] 17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

[Prophet] 44 But Alma said unto him: Thou hast had signs enough; will ye tempt your God? Will ye say, Show unto me a sign, when ye have the testimony of aall these thy brethren, and also all the holy prophets? The scriptures are laid before thee, yea, and all things denote there is a God; yea, even the earth, and all things that are upon the face of it, yea, and its motion, yea, and also all the planets which move in their regular form do witness that there is a Supreme Creator.

23 posted on 05/08/2007 5:53:21 AM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X= they killed 1 in 4 of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
The cornerstone principle of the American republic:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...

24 posted on 05/08/2007 6:01:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("A [Free] Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Which has zero to do with science.

At the time that was said, slaves were not “men” and were certainly not “equal.” Ditto females.

Science classes are supposed to teach what scientists think jst as math classes teach what mathemeticians think.

Religion comes from the home.


25 posted on 05/08/2007 7:34:25 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

Eventually, slaves were freed, at great cost, and women gained their franchise. IOW, practice caught up with overriding principle.

If you think science classes are only teaching science in today’s America, and not a world view that is hostile to Christianity and the founding principles, you’re either deluded or dishonest. One or the other.


26 posted on 05/08/2007 7:41:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("A [Free] Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

At the time of writing, slaves were not in the group of “all men” and neither were females. Later changes are all very well, but don’t quoite something that does not apply.

I teach science, specifically biology at the college level. You may accuse me of anything you like, but you have not yet said that I do not teach what scientists think.

My father was a man of deep faith. He never challenged what was taught in science classes because for him it was an act of faith to believe what the Bible said. I respect that.

I do not respect silly word games and asking that science teachers (Episcopalian, Jewish, Baptist, Hindu, etc.) address one specific sub-section of Christian belief.

I especially don’t want schools getting involved in how I teach religion to my kids and grandkids. Don’t trust them that much and don’t know why you do.


27 posted on 05/08/2007 8:29:01 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
At the time of writing, slaves were not in the group of “all men” and neither were females. Later changes are all very well, but don’t quoite something that does not apply.

Yeah, I know, I know, those terrible white guys. /s

I teach science, specifically biology at the college level. You may accuse me of anything you like, but you have not yet said that I do not teach what scientists think.

You need to be clearer. Perhaps you could get a colleague who specializes in English to assist you.

My father was a man of deep faith. He never challenged what was taught in science classes because for him it was an act of faith to believe what the Bible said. I respect that.

Perhaps he should have. Maybe we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now.

I do not respect silly word games and asking that science teachers (Episcopalian, Jewish, Baptist, Hindu, etc.) address one specific sub-section of Christian belief.

My controversy is with the vast number of "science" teachers who are not teaching science, they are teaching a form of godless humanism that has nothing to do with provable science.

I especially don’t want schools getting involved in how I teach religion to my kids and grandkids. Don’t trust them that much and don’t know why you do.

I don't trust them at all. The government schools are dinosaurs, ones which deserve to become extinct, for a number of very good reasons. One of the primary ones is that they are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the anti-God, anti-American Left.

28 posted on 05/08/2007 8:43:36 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("A [Free] Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: visualops
What is wrong is for schools to to undertake social engineering, to forgo discipline for elevation of victimhood, and to increasingly spend more time doing anything but teaching subject matter and critical thinking. Science is not incompatible with Christianity.

Science is incompatible with pseudo-science. It is a base-level fallacy to teach matters having to do with theology and ontology and call it a "science of evolution." Science can handle the taxonomy involved and some (not nearly all) of the process. Science doesn't do Darwinism, however.

But, to very essentially disagree with what you have just written: to teach extant and culturally accepted opinions about origins, however, is to properly teach -- and if one is to learn in school, one should not have to learn only from the set {everything but matters having to do with God and His Son}.

Since there is more to life and to knowledge which is critical to understand than what may be gathered in the realm of science (to say nothing of calling philosophical constructs "science") there is more than science that should be taught.

29 posted on 05/08/2007 8:48:36 AM PDT by unspun (What do you think? Please think, before you answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

>At the time of writing, slaves were not in the group of “all men” and neither were females. Later changes are all very well, but don’t quoite something that does not apply.<<

>Yeah, I know, I know, those terrible white guys. /s<

Irrelevant and incorrect.
~~~~~~

>>I teach science, specifically biology at the college level. You may accuse me of anything you like, but you have not yet said that I do not teach what scientists think.

>You need to be clearer. Perhaps you could get a colleague who specializes in English to assist you.<

And, perhaps, you have reading comprehension problems when you find the text is hard to refute.

Here, I’ll make it easier. I’ll use simple declarative sentences:
I teach science.
I teach biology at the college level.
You may accuse me of anything you like.
You have not said that I teach anything besides what scientists think.

~~~~~~~~

>>My father was a man of deep faith. He never challenged what was taught in science classes because for him it was an act of faith to believe what the Bible said. I respect that.<<

Perhaps he should have. Maybe we wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in now.<

You could not be more wrong. He was a shining example of Faith. He could easily tell the difference between what scientists think and God.
~~~~~~~~~~

>>I do not respect silly word games and asking that science teachers (Episcopalian, Jewish, Baptist, Hindu, etc.) address one specific sub-section of Christian belief.<<

>My controversy is with the vast number of “science” teachers who are not teaching science, they are teaching a form of godless humanism that has nothing to do with provable science.<

Quote something.

~~~~~~~~~~

>>I especially don’t want schools getting involved in how I teach religion to my kids and grandkids. Don’t trust them that much and don’t
know why you do.<<

>I don’t trust them at all. The government schools are dinosaurs, ones which deserve to become extinct, for a number of very good reasons. One of the primary ones is that they are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the anti-God, anti-American Left.<

And these are the people you want to have teaching creationism? Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?


30 posted on 05/08/2007 9:16:40 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
You have not said that I teach anything besides what scientists think.

So?

31 posted on 05/08/2007 9:38:49 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("A [Free] Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
And these are the people you want to have teaching creationism?

No. I don't want godless athiests, or teachers of humanism under the guise of science, anywhere near my children.

32 posted on 05/08/2007 9:39:58 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("A [Free] Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All

I’d note that this article doesn’t suggest that Romney’s opposed to states or localities having the OPTION to teach intelligent design in public schools. Which is, as we know, the only relevant thing in a fairly federalist educational system. It sounds like Romney wouldn’t prefer teaching ID in public schools if he were, say, a governor or a mayor. But we have no idea about whether or not he think it ought to allowable. And that currently is a question the Supreme Court’s going to have to re-examine if we want progress on the issue.


33 posted on 05/08/2007 10:32:02 AM PDT by Obilisk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Do you have kids in the public schools?

If so, take them out since you cannot require that all teachers be of your denomination.

If not, you have no problem and no argument.


34 posted on 05/08/2007 11:01:51 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
They why preach to the little children things happened in such and such manner based solely on theory?

You mean, theory supported by 500 years of data?

35 posted on 05/08/2007 11:08:09 AM PDT by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Obilisk18; All
-—”I’d note that this article doesn’t suggest that Romney’s opposed to states or localities having the OPTION to teach intelligent design in public schools. Which is, as we know, the only relevant thing in a fairly federalist educational system. It sounds like Romney wouldn’t prefer teaching ID in public schools if he were, say, a governor or a mayor. But we have no idea about whether or not he think it ought to allowable. And that currently is a question the Supreme Court’s going to have to re-examine if we want progress on the issue.”-—

Finally!

Somebody had to actually debate the ISSUE at hand if I waited long enough. Instead, I got the “burn the ID/Creationists at the stake” crowd rounding up the lynch mobs. That wasn’t the point at hand.

The point at hand was that I would like to know if Mitt Romney would be an advocate of banning, or any legislation banning, the teaching of ID/Creationism/Evolution/Whateverism period. As a CONSERVATIVE, I believe in local control over education, and I believe that it is the CONSERVATIVE position that if a local school board/whatever board wished to teach Evolution exclusively in their schools, it is their right to decide. If a school board in say, Kansas, wishes to also address the theory of ID/Creationism/Whatever else in their classrooms, it is their right to do so.

THAT’S my issue at hand, and I would like to know where Mitt Romney stands, exactly, as clearly as can be stated.

I don’t care if you believe the Earth was created in six days, or 4.5 billion years ago, or if bees are the descendants of ants, or if they were uniquely created. I was talking about the relevant political issues this raises.

SHEEEEESH!

36 posted on 05/08/2007 2:24:37 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
Nobody's interested in taking your .458 Win to keep Mr. Bear from squashing you all flat.

Go swat a mosquito.

37 posted on 05/08/2007 2:36:59 PM PDT by muleskinner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metmom
They just don’t want to give up their monopoly on the issue. Heaven forbid that the TAXPAYERS actually have a say in what their taxes are being used for in the education of THEIR own children. I don’t see how someone can call themselves conservative and be so in favor of federal government control of education.

Monopoly is an excellent term to describe the education system, it is 'holy' owned by the fittest crowd and they get their take first out of the taxpayer pie. This global warming hoax gets preached out of the same secular primer.

38 posted on 05/08/2007 6:14:42 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
You mean, theory supported by 500 years of data?

The Bible is thousands of years old and nowhere in it does it say how old this earth is. In fact what it describes are events that happened multiples of millions of years ago. Peter a New Testament writer says there are three different heaven/earth ages. The Bible even describes the system of TOE teaching if one can read with understanding.

39 posted on 05/08/2007 6:21:15 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
I've contributed $$ to Romney's campaign and strongly support him for president. Although his recent change of heart on abortion and embryonic stem cells have raised my eyebrows, I have been willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. His pro-life actions as governor while I was a resident of MA more than confirm for me that he was always pro-life in his heart, even if until recently he failed to confess it with his lips.

His flip-flop on ethanol made me angry, but I am enough of a realist to realize that he needs to win Iowa.

But he had better stick to his guns on keeping creationist pseudosciece out of science class. If he flip-flops on this, he will completely lose my respect, and my support.

40 posted on 05/09/2007 10:41:32 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Obilisk18
I’d note that this article doesn’t suggest that Romney’s opposed to states or localities having the OPTION to teach intelligent design in public schools.

He is on record as opposing it being taught in science class.

41 posted on 05/09/2007 11:00:59 AM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
-—”I’d note that this article doesn’t suggest that Romney’s opposed to states or localities having the OPTION to teach intelligent design in public schools.

He is on record as opposing it being taught in science class.”-—

Um. Then he takes the Liberal position, which is that the Federal Government should dictate what schools are and are not allowed to teach. I hope you’re wrong, and that he supports the Conservative idea that it’s up to the local school boards, et al, to decide.

Otherwise, he would be dictating as an omniscient theocrat, which seems to be your preferred approach. I’ll pass on the “he knows what’s good for us” approach and settle for the “parents and local communities know what’s best for their own children” approach.

The ends do no always justify the means - in other words, just because the results may reflect our personal view on the topic does not make the Liberal method any more acceptable.

42 posted on 05/09/2007 1:18:26 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC
Then he takes the Liberal position, which is that the Federal Government should dictate what schools are and are not allowed to teach.

His statement was in 2005, when he was still governor, and I seem to remember it being in the context of what should be taught in Massachusetts schools. To my knowledge, he hasn't said anything about the federal government getting involved in this issue.

As far as my own view, it's a really bad idea to teach ID or creationism in science class, and the president should use his bully pulpit to speak out against it. He should leave it to the courts to determine whether teaching ID in a public school violates the 14th Amendment. I believe it does, and it seems that most judges, even conservative Bush-appointed judges, agree.

43 posted on 05/09/2007 2:47:22 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: curiosity
-—”I believe it does, and it seems that most judges, even conservative Bush-appointed judges, agree.”-—

Name three Bush-appointed judges that do.

-—”He should leave it to the courts to determine whether teaching ID in a public school violates the 14th Amendment.”-—

That is a dangerous, dangerous threshold. Consider also, that the public school system was actually created to provide a biblical education to everyone, especially the poor. Yes, it really was.

I’m not advocating ID or Creationism or Whateverism. But there is simply no place for the Federal Government to tell local schools what they can and cannot teach. Neither is it the place of the courts to determine such things. It is that line of thinking that gives us judges who rule the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. If one interprets ID, a view which has proponents in many faiths, as an advocation of one specific religion by the state, then how can one not take the same view of any reference to God?

“Let the judges decide” is not a Conservative value, “let the people decide” is.

Anyhow, the point is: will Mitt leave it to the states?

44 posted on 05/09/2007 5:12:20 PM PDT by TitansAFC ("My 80% enemy is not my 20% friend" -- Common Sense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TitansAFC

>I like Mitt, have grown to like him more in the past couple of weeks, and would like to hear his response on such issue. Would he still support a ban on the teaching of ID?<

Before Mitt could answer that question, he would have to know where you stand on that issue, of course.


45 posted on 05/09/2007 5:19:37 PM PDT by Paperdoll ( on the cutting edge,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson