Indeed, but they’ll distinguish that on grounds that the Koran teaches war and the Bible teaches peace. A better analogy would be Buddhism. If you think Baptists get a little ornery when Mormons poach members of the congregation, have the state turn a few Christian kids into budding Buddhist monks and see what happens.

Allahpundit on November 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM

The more serious objection would be that Islamic theology would not be thought as is but instead whitewashed as it is in universities. In fact this is already happening. I was thought about Christianity and Buddhism in school at age 13 and it didn’t do me any harm.

Better yet, school choice. I got to choose the high school I went to, and I believe I’m a (slightly more educated and) better person for it. Yay for vouchers!

Personally, I hate when my mother-in-law tells my daughter about the Bible, but that’s a family thing. The heck if I’m going to let that crap fly from a public school teacher (my daughter starts kg next Fall).

MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 2:58 AM
Gene Splicer, are you getting paid by the number of times you use the word “simplistic”? How much? 5 cents each time?
How about “complex” and “complexity”? How much? 2 cents each time?
And now “bloviating” and “rant”? How much? 1 cent each time?

How about addressing the points made rather than you r problem with me or my diction.

Is that the best you can do? Apparently it is or otherwise you would not likely be doing it, and so much of it. But then what you are trying, although not well at all, to defend, is indefensible.

You have yet to post anything but personal slights and the quote of other men in defense of whatever your position is. My points have been made and detailed in conversation with Spirit of 1776.

Speaking of indefensible, you could use your sorry excuse for argument to defend 9/11.
You could say “Well 9/11 was not Al Qaeda’s fault, it was really mostly Americas fault.”

I would normally ask you to provide support for this fallacy of composition yuo posted here, but you have to actually defend anything you have posted other than to take issue with me or my diction.

Then after someone else responds you could say, “That’s simplistic and sophomoric, it’s more complex than that and you are just bloviating and ranting!

Again, debate the issue and not my diction.

It has been almost a century and a half.

Time is irrelevant when it comes to actions taken by a hypocrite such as Lincoln.

The south and the slavers lost the civil war as they most certainly should have.

Again, judging by modern morals of a past society. To do so is simplistic. Sorry you have a problem with that term, but is applicable.

Slavery has been abolished.

Really? Then you have no clue as to the status of the rest of the world, just your simplistic (oh the pain) view.

Get over it! It’s would be for your own good. I firmly believe that the big majority of southerners have. Why can’t you?

Again, you cannot even address the topic with fact, just the simplistic pabulum if the slavery issue.

Do you have little Confederate and Union soldiers that you refight the civil war with? How about John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln figures? You know the great President Abraham Lincoln that you say was a hypocrite and who destroyed our country or some such.

More non sequitor comments. Again, address the issue rather than me or my diction if you can.

I hope that you are not actually doing that, but it is not at all hard to imagine it.

And again, address the topic with something other than more of your whining, personal rants and comments. If you are unable to actually debate your case rationally, then by all means keep obsessing about my diction and making personal comments.
Take my conversation with Spirit of 1776 for example. We disagree on certain points but through his citing historical events I can understand his or her point of view. You seem to just want to preach and make unquestionable summary statements.

You seem too emotionally attached to the topic of Lincoln to debate rationally and without resorting to such personal rants.

My real concern is having Public Education. The Founders were against that. We seriously as righties need to stop sending kids to public schools. We need to start scholarships and such to get them out and get them in Hilsdale style schools, even elementary schools.

It was a Christian people, a Bible believing Christian people that built a nation where all people were free to live in liberty!

One freedom in the Constitution is to practice a religion that holds that the Bible is not written by your God.

It seems clear to me that the founders recognized the importance of religion as an organizing and moral force among the people they were about to rule. Almost all those people were protestants. Even so, they managed to produce the Declaration of Independence and Constitution without referencing the Bible as precident.

ALl religions are not equal in this case because the old and new testaments of the Bible are the basis of the American system. We are not a sharia based nation. We are a nation formed on biblical principles. What was considered to be good or important, or not good or detrimental, was taken from the pages of the Bible which was the foundation of study for those who wrote our system of governmnet

The first Congress even endorsed a recommended translation of the Bible for reading

How about “complex” and “complexity”? How much? 2 cents each time?

And now “bloviating” and “rant”? How much? 1 cent each time?

Is that the best you can do? Apparently it is or otherwise you would not likely be doing it, and so much of it. But then what you are trying, although not well at all, to defend, is indefensible.

Speaking of indefensible, you could use your sorry excuse for argument to defend 9/11.

You could say “Well 9/11 was not Al Qaeda’s fault, it was really mostly Americas fault.”

Then after someone else responds you could say, “That’s simplistic and sophomoric, it’s more complex than that and you are just bloviating and ranting!

It has been almost a century and a half.

The south and the slavers lost the civil war as they most certainly should have.

Slavery has been abolished.

Get over it! It’s would be for your own good. I firmly believe that the big majority of southerners have. Why can’t you?

Do you have little Confederate and Union soldiers that you refight the civil war with? How about John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln figures? You know the great President Abraham Lincoln that you say was a hypocrite and who destroyed our country or some such.

I hope that you are not actually doing that, but it is not at all hard to imagine it.

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Well maybe that is what you got stuck in your craw, a “non sequitor”. Could be that. I dunno. I suppose. It is something mighty damn big that is for sure. Probably been there for a long time too. Pretty damn old whatever it is. You should probably purge yourself of it. It would be for your own good. Might make you feel better.

You have yet to explain your odd “hereditary jihad comment.” Care to explain that odd and personal slight or should I just let you skip off to the next tangent?

Perhaps you can actually address the topic rather than make one odd and unsubstantiated personal comment after another. If not, then by all means, rant on.

There is nothing “sophomoric” about thinking that no one should have slaves. Period.
Nothing “simplistic” about it either.

This has been addressed before. You are judging people of the past with a modern morality. This is a simplistic outlook and sophomoric. Again, using the same rules, you would also have to find the founders similarly condemnable.

At least you substituted “sophomoric” for your over used “simplistic” this time anyway.

No, I included it. Your view of history is simplistic and does not take into account the complexity of any time period. History is never as cut and dry as you present it.

You need to come up with another word to substitute for “complex” now.

Why? You ignore this reality of history.

Then move on to something other than trying to re-fight the Civil War that freed the slaves from their tyrants.

Perhaps if you actually read anything other than simplistic quotes and history, you could address the actual topic with some substance rather than more bloviating.

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I disagree. I do agree that evolution exists, as species do evolve within themselves. However, I do not believe in the big bang theory that everything was created out of a vacuum. Nothing can be created out of a vacuum.

Then you are confusing evolution with the origin of the universe which is a topic evolution does not seek to address, no matter what the likes of “Dr.” Kent Hovind claim.
The theory governing the origin of the universe does not even state a vacuum or nothing as has been all too often claimed.

Take a jar or a bag and suck all the air out of it and just watch and wait for something to be created out of it. You will wait for eternity. If in the beginning there was an atom, something must have created that atom. It simply did not come into existance from a vacuum.

And this is typical Discovery institute nonsense. I(f you wish to discuss science then do not try to get such theory form a religious institution.

P.S. No, there is the Law of Gravity, not the Theory of Gravity. It is proven. It is fact.

And again, you simply do not understand that of which you speak. For anything to be science, it must meet several standards. One of these standards is falsifiability or the ability to be proven wrong or replaced. Gravity, like evolution, has a huge amount of supportive proof, but will never technical be a law or fact due to this requirement.
Creationism is not backed by anything other than religion and myth. Evolution on the other hand has huge amounts of evidence form varied disciplines of science.

All else is just fluff in somebody’s craw.

Non sequitor.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Well maybe that is what you got stuck in your craw, a “non sequitor”. Could be that. I dunno. I suppose. It is something mighty damn big that is for sure. Probably been there for a long time too. Pretty damn old whatever it is. You should probably purge yourself of it. It would be for your own good. Might make you feel better.

The cry of freeing ht slaves is a sophomoric cry to sum up a time and a war far more complex then it is portrayed.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 7:19 PM

There is nothing “sophomoric” about thinking that no one should have slaves. Period.
Nothing “simplistic” about it either.
At least you substituted “sophomoric” for your over used “simplistic” this time anyway.
You need to come up with another word to substitute for “complex” now.
Then move on to something other than trying to re-fight the Civil War that freed the slaves from their tyrants.

If that is the case, then both evolution and creationism should be taught, since both are theories, no?

Creationism isn’t a scientific theory. In 1987 the Supreme Court in Edwards v Aguillard ruled that the teaching of creationism in science class violated the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Yeah, it’s correctly labeled a theory. As to your question, I can’t answer it. I have no familiarity with what determines the composition of educational guidelines. My guess it that it would be boards of education at the state level, so voters might be able to affect the curriculum via ballot box, but after NCLB maybe all from the Fed level. Frankly I don’t know, not my field of expertise :)

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Thanks, I’m not a scientist, but I just assumed that the law of gravity was just that. So according to your comment, evolution is, like I said, theory and has not been proven.

If that is the case, then both evolution and creationism should be taught, since both are theories, no?

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Peg, even when accepted as ‘fact’ science holds the label of theory. Science can’t test every possibility so cannot label as law (even when so widely accepted as to be referred to as such). Therefore an infinite amount of supporting evidence, is merely that – supporting evidence, when a single example (if repeatable) of non-compliance can disprove.

I disagree. I do agree that evolution exists, as species do evolve within themselves. However, I do not believe in the big bang theory that everything was created out of a vacuum. Nothing can be created out of a vacuum. Take a jar or a bag and suck all the air out of it and just watch and wait for something to be created out of it. You will wait for eternity. If in the beginning there was an atom, something must have created that atom. It simply did not come into existance from a vacuum.