Romney in 2005: Opposed Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools

The Brody File ^ | May 7, 2007 | David Brody

[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.

[TitansAFC]

-—”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.

[curiosity]

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.

[TitansAFC]

-—”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?

[Paperdoll]

>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.