For starters the title "political science" is incorrect, if anything its "political conservative and liberal arts".

There is no science to politics, but there sure is an art to scamming the general public for their own greedy gains.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

If they want their child to learn the earth is flat then so be it but I can guarantee that Childs chance of getting into college or going into science will be small.

But then we get cults of people who think the earth is flat, or whatever other lie they're taught. Then we get joke colleges and diploma mills trading degrees for cash, because the demand exists, and XXXXXX like Kent Hovind and Jason Gastrich can claim that they have advanced degrees and use these "qualifications" to promote their rubbish to the public.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

Children home schooled are taught directly by their parents so this scary system your worried about is already reality.

But those children are still required to be taught what everyone else is taught.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

First of all I don’t think there is a separation between Church and State but that’s a conversation for a different thread.

I don't think there's a total separation either, but that doesn't mean that I think there shouldn't be total separation; the problem lies in the enforcement, not in the policy.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

Also the government money is most likely going to be sent to the parent to pay for only educational choices (tax credit). In a way all the government sees is money going to the parent form there it goes to a school of the parents choice.

And if the parents choose to send the money -- given by the government solely for education -- to a school that promotes religion, then the government is paying for religious instruction.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

I really don’t care how it works since again I don’t see a separation between church and state.

Unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court does, so what you see or don't see doesn't make a bit of difference.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

But then we get cults of people who think the earth is flat, or whatever other lie they're taught. Then we get joke colleges and diploma mills trading degrees for cash, because the demand exists, and XXXXXX like Kent Hovind and Jason Gastrich can claim that they have advanced degrees and use these "qualifications" to promote their rubbish to the public.

Like I said before each State has there own laws regarding the oversite of private schools. That is up to the State.

In Minnesota Home schools need to pass requirements but other States such as Texas have very Lenient or zero laws regarding home schooling. Either way the parent injects their opinion.

As for the joke colleges, they already exist. Many Private Colleges already teach this Young Earth creation science rubbish but I stand by their right to do so.

We live in a country run by global competition and I can guarantee you Companies will pay attention to the people it hires. If it wants to succeed in Sciences they will hire those from accredited Universities and if a company wants to hire a Young Earth creationist I have no problem with it (Answers in Genesis for example). These companies will have to withstand the brunt of other legitimate sciences.

So you admit that teachers are actually defending the education of kids? You admit that allowing parents to spend state funding on any wackjob school will result in even more with screwed up educations than you have at present? Obvious thing to have would be a compromise system like we have in the UK. Allow state run schools of a religious character so long as they teach a proper science curriculum and don't exclude people based on religion. Works well enough here but the US paranoid secularism won't allow that. Probably sensible given how fundamentalist american religion gets though.

Originally Posted by Jo Bennett

So you admit that teachers are actually defending the education of kids? You admit that allowing parents to spend state funding on any wackjob school will result in even more with screwed up educations than you have at present?

What Jo said.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

As for the joke colleges, they already exist. Many Private Colleges already teach this Young Earth creation science rubbish but I stand by their right to do so.

Fine, but this is no way justifies providing such a lousy education to students that they can't see through XXXX that such places teach. The only reason these places exist is that there's a market for them.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

If it wants to succeed in Sciences they will hire those from accredited Universities and if a company wants to hire a Young Earth creationist I have no problem with it (Answers in Genesis for example). These companies will have to withstand the brunt of other legitimate sciences.

AiG is essentially a ministry, not a "company." They have nothing to do with science and don't give a rat's XXX about "legitimate" anything; they go out of their way to shift and squirm so that they avoid legitimate science. The only business AiG conducts is trading disinformation and preaching for donations from people who don't know better. Teach people to know better, I say, and AiG will die a natural, well-deserved death.
Instead, Republicans are actually making support of teaching creationism a political topic (Texas and South Dakota Republicans have explicitly included it in their platform, despite the Supreme Court ruling it unconstitutional). So I ask again: Why would teachers' unions want to support these policies?

In the U.S.A. a law regarding education requirements falls to the States. Some States are more regulated others are not.

The point I was trying to get at with the whole parent choice situation is that the parents will choose the best for their child. They want their child to succeed. Having them learn Young Earth creation science won’t affect their future because all real jobs don require you to know information regarding our origins.

AiG is a ministry but they do hire real scientists and they try to debunk everything relating to an old earth and they even come up with their own models.

If everyone in this country as a whole embraces Young Earth creationism then that’s the will of the people since we are a democracy. Who cares about our origins we will find out the answer when we die. I just don’t think the government should be funding one viewpoint which of course is the atheist ideology.

If there are markets for these weird view points then the people getting degrees in them will find a job. We can’t just force the Government view of life onto everyone. The normal Sciences will probably be enforced by the State (compulsory education requirements) but subjects regarding our origins have question marks around them and should be chosen by the parent which should be allowed in a free democracy.

As for Government tax credits the government only sees money going to the parent. If our judges say education only tax credits are unconstitutional then the government wont mandate education only, Instead money will be sent to a parent with eligible children. There is always a way to get around the court systems.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

The point I was trying to get at with the whole parent choice situation is that the parents will choose the best for their child.

Your mistake lies in parental choice: Parents will choose what they, the parents think is best for their children. This has no necessary correlation with what is actually the best for their children.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

AiG is a ministry but they do hire real scientists and they try to debunk everything relating to an old earth and they even come up with their own models.

Very few of AiG's scientists are legitimately credentialed. None have published creationist articles because none of them pass peer-review, "model" or not. (See the R.A.T.E group for an example.)

Originally Posted by NeoCon

If everyone in this country as a whole embraces Young Earth creationism then that’s the will of the people since we are a democracy.

If the "will of the people" is to murder NeoCon in cold blood, does that mean we should murder NeoCon in cold blood? Again, "the will of the people" has no necessary correlation to reality.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

Who cares about our origins we will find out the answer when we die.

I care about origins. So do many other people, including people whose work leads to your benefit. If you think biology and evolution are such bunk, be sure to refuse vaccines and most medical treatments, as they've resulted from serious work by people who care.
And just for fun: As one outspoken atheist once put it: "Do you know what the worst part about being an atheist is? When we die, I don't get to say 'I told you so.'" In other words: no, we won't find out the answer when we die.

Originally Posted by NeoCon

I just don’t think the government should be funding one viewpoint which of course is the atheist ideology.

See, it's remarks like these that give me justification for labeling you a fundy and roasting the daylights out of you. But we'll start simple. Science is secular, not atheistic. Evolutionary theory is scientific. Why do you have a problem with the government funding science?

Originally Posted by NeoCon

... but subjects regarding our origins have question marks around them and should be chosen by the parent which should be allowed in a free democracy.

The only question marks regarding evolutionary theory have to do with specifics and mechanisms. There is no scientific doubt that evolutionary theory is true; it has the same standing as gravitational theory or the germ theory of disease, except that it has been strengthened by being the subject of much critique by rabid fundies. It is quite possibly the best-supported biological concept in existence. If you care to deny this, start a thread in the Creation/ID vs. Evolution forum, and your arguments will be thoroughly dismantled and refuted.
This XXXX about parents' choice is getting very old. If a parent has no significant education in history, why should that parent have such a significant role in determining what is taught? Apply this to any and every subject. If you're not familiar with the mathematics behind the summation of infinite series, why should teachers ask you if and how it should be taught?

Originally Posted by NeoCon

As for Government tax credits the government only sees money going to the parent.

If the "credit" is for a specific purpose, namely education, and the recipient does not spend it on education (but rather religious instruction), you see no problem with it? If grant guru Matthew Lesko tells me how to get $50,000 to start a new business, and I spend it all on twinkies and ramen noodles for my friends, do you think the government doesn't care?

Parents don't always have their children's best interest at heart, that's why we have laws against neglect and child abuse. Even if they did, not all parents are qualified to make decisions about their children's education without assistance. For instance, a friend of my sister couldn't go to university because her father refused to pay the tuition fees (about 1k/year), as he hadn't been to university and didn't think it was worthwhile. Admittedly that's a HE example because our compulsory education system doesn't allow that sort of idocy, thankfully. Why on earth you children have their lives knobbled from the outset by the ignorance of their parents when we can so easily avoid it?

Originally Posted by electrolyte

And if the parents choose to send the money -- given by the government solely for education -- to a school that promotes religion, then the government is paying for religious instruction.

Good post otherwise, but this is false. In this case, any tax credit could be donated to a church. The government is giving a tax credit and the parent is spending it on religious school, that's not violating the separation of church and state. The pledge does.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

Your mistake lies in parental choice: Parents will choose what they, the parents think is best for their children. This has no necessary correlation with what is actually the best for their children.

But we base our society on the parent having the best interests of the child at heart. Is it in the best interest of the child to be forced to do chores every waking hour? Would that be considered child abuse? Probably not, but even if so, how do they enforce it? Fortunately most parents love their children and want what's best for them, we're programmed that way. Personally, I'd rather have the parent decide what's best for their children rather than the government.

On the original topic, easily 98% of the teachers here are liberal. Maybe that's just because we're in Maryland about 10 minutes outside of DC. I've heard that most teachers in Arkansas (I have a friend who moved down there) are mainly conservative.

But I had a great government teacher. He was really good at being unbiased, although it was clear he was a Democrat. He would give both sides of the argument and when someone would give some liberal rhetoric, he would give the opposing argument, playing devil's advocate. He made us think a lot, and that's a good thing.

Sorry I'm making so many posts, but I just thought of something else. I was in the car and we were talking and my brother pointed out something about Lincoln suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus (which I actually hadn't heard) for some people. He was saying how it was for the good of the country, and when I challenged him on that he said "well that's what my history teacher said". I asked him how it was any different than what Bush is doing in Gitmo, suspending their rights for "the good of the country". I tried to explain that it sets a dangerous precedent when we allow anyone to simply take away rights for "the security of the country". But he still maintained that the country would have fallen apart without him doing that. But basically it was because his teacher had told him that Lincoln was good and what Bush is doing is bad (well I don't know about the second part coming from a teacher, but I agree with him on that. We can't be taking away rights for the sake of security. Then all we have to do is have a permanent state of war. Wait a minute...).

Originally Posted by zachvac

In this case, any tax credit could be donated to a church.

If you buy a honkin' 6000-pound vehicle, and the government gives you a $37,100 tax credit because big oil has pushed for such subsidies (no, I'm not making this up), then you can spend it however you want. If you get a tax credit explicitly for the purpose of education and spend it on a religious school, a line is crossed, in my opinion.
Taking money away from the public education system is another best in itself.

Originally Posted by zachvac

But we base our society on the parent having the best interests of the child at heart.

No, we don't. Our society knows damn well that not all parents know what's best for their children. If your assertion were true, there would never be any charges or convictions of parental child abuse.

Originally Posted by zachvac

Fortunately most parents love their children and want what's best for them, we're programmed that way.

Zach, did you miss what I said earlier? Even those parents who want what's "best" for their children often don't know (or worse, are plain wrong about) what's best for their children.

Originally Posted by zachvac

Personally, I'd rather have the parent decide what's best for their children rather than the government.

Call me crazy, but -- personally -- I'd rather have people qualified to make the decisions actually make the decisions.

Originally Posted by zachvac

I was in the car and we were talking and my brother pointed out something about Lincoln suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus... [snip]

That's a problem with the teacher, not the curriculum.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

If the "will of the people" is to murder NeoCon in cold blood, does that mean we should murder NeoCon in cold blood? Again, "the will of the people" has no necessary correlation to reality.

The legitimate purpose of the government is to protect the citizen’s rights. The will of the people can’t override this, especially if it goes against our constitution.

Originally Posted by electrolyte

I care about origins. So do many other people, including people whose work leads to your benefit. If you think biology and evolution are such bunk, be sure to refuse vaccines and most medical treatments, as they've resulted from serious work by people who care.
And just for fun: As one outspoken atheist once put it: "Do you know what the worst part about being an atheist is? When we die, I don't get to say 'I told you so.'" In other words: no, we won't find out the answer when we die.

I was speaking of origins (how life started) not about the sciences. Through science we find how to create vaccines so I find no conflict there.
I feel sorry you don’t believe in the afterlife hopefully God reveals himself to you later in life. If you are an ex-Christian I pity your misguided transformation.

Evolution has many flaws and it requires faith to believe in it. Can you show me a Dinosaur with half sprouting ineffective wings?